renewal) and a possible total of four and a half months without the possibility of judicial review81 . Article 51 of the NSA 2010, setting out the rights of the arrested person, also provides that (1) Upon arresting, detaining or putting a person in custody, he/she shall be informed of the reasons why he/she is arrested, detained or put in custody. 112.The Complainant referred to the African Commission's jurisprudence, in International PEN et al. (on behalf of Ken-Saro Wiwa Jnr. ) v. Nigeria, where the African Commission held that a Decree that permitted the authorities to detain people without charge for as long as three months without the opportunity for the detainees to challenge their arrest and detention before a court of law, presented a prima facie violation of the right not to be arbitrarily arrested or detained under Article 6 of the African Charter. 113.The Complainant submits that there is no explicit requirement for the NISS to issue specific criminal charges under the NSA 2010, and therefore, the domestic legislation lacks the specificity required under the African Charter and renders arrests and detention unpredictable. Alleged Violation of Article 7 of the African Charter 114.The Complainant alleges that Article 7 of the African Charter was violated on several counts, including a) the denial of habeas corpus, b) the failure to provide information on the reasons for arrest and any charges brought, and c) the denial of access to a lawyer. Denial of habeas corpus 115.The Complainant states that Article 7 (1) (d) of the African Charter provides that every individual has "the right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court or tribunal". According to the Complainant, the African Commission has not defined the meaning of "reasonable time" or "promptness" about the right to judicial oversight of the lawfulness of detention. The Complainant referred to Article 19 v Eritrea, in which the African Commission set out that "[t]he question of what is reasonable cannot be expressed in terms of a blanket time limit which will apply in all cases, but rather must depend on the circumstances. The Complainant argues s1 . It sets out that any NISS member may: (e) Arrest or detain any suspected person for a period not exceeding thirty days provided that his/her relatives are immediately informed. (0 After elapse of the thirty days mentioned in Para (e) above, and if there are reasons that require more investigation, enquiry and maintaining the detained person in custody, NSS member shall refer the issue to the Director and make the recommendations he deems appropriate. (g) The Director may renew the detention period for not more than fifteen days with the purpose of completing investigation and enquiry. {h) If it comes to the knowledge of the Director that maintaining any person in custody is necessacy fe~etiQ)J ~ investigation and enquiry in case of an accusation related to a factor threatening the security and ,safe~~f"the"peop1er,. Intimidating society by way of armed robbery, racial, religious sedition or terrorism; disrupting peace;· exer • • 'tical v-<> violence; or plotting against the country, he shall refer the issue to the Council which may extend the;deten • n p~ iod}or t ~ more than three months. i ( .:./ . ~)~ <::'6 DC i-. /JoV: p.\.l-1.lA II 'i.. ·-::s -r.s>c ( v" ,:: 'I' \· 4•·R1c.r,1l-<"- 24,~" ''o~Al,E F.1 C,I:. \ ~