It is therefore without doubt that the Respondent, throughout his defense, never rebutted the claim that by and the averments that the Applicants were soldiers in the Nigerian Army, they failed also to rebut the loss of earning which is a condition to the right to work, all these are covered by the provisions of Article 6 (1), 7(a) (i) & (b) of the ICECR, Article 15 ACHPR and Article 23 of the UDHR. The Court notes that the Applicants relied heavily on the above mentioned provisions in order to establish their claim of a violation of right to work. They also have relied on the following case of MOHAMED EL TAYYIB BAH V REPUBLIC OF SIERRA LEONE (2013) in which the Applicant was dismissed from the service of the Sierra Leone police force without being given the opportunity to be heard. See also the case of Dr. Rose Mbatomon Ako v West African Monetary Agency & 5 Ors. (2013) CCJ/JUD/02/13. From the observation noted above it is clear to the Court that the Applicants right to work has been breached by the consistent act of the Respondent and therefore constitutes a breach of that right and the Court holds that the Applicants’ right to work were violated. C. Whether the Applicants right to fair hearing was violated  The Right to be heard before an independent, competent tribunal  The Right to be represented by Counsel of your choice The Court notes that Article 7 of the ACHPR, Article 8, 10, UDHR guarantees right to fair hearing. It provided thus: Article 7 of the ACHPR: 1. Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises: 1. The right to an appeal to competent national organs against acts of violating his fundamental rights as recognized and guaranteed by conventions, laws, regulations and customs in force; 2. The right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty by a competent court or tribunal; 15