Federal Republic of Nigeria, it was held that the provision of refuge by the Nigeria Consul- General to a Nigerian national was an act performed in the exercise of a Consular function within the meeting of Article 43 and thus attracted consular immunity. There is no evidence that the offences for which the Plaintiff was convicted were acts done in the performance of his consular duties rather they are “grave crimes” committed by him for which he was afforded due process. The law also is that Consuls must possess a commission from sending State and the authorization (EXEQUATUR) from a receiving State. As rightly posited there is no evidence that the Plaintiff was issued with exequatur by the receiving State and this further shows that his status as Consul General of the Defendant at the time of incarceration is questionable. In the light of the foregoing, it is obvious that the Plaintiff being a Consul- General of the Defendant is not covered by the inviolability provisions afforded to Diplomatic Agents under international law. Above all, it is the sending State which grants the status of “Consul” to individuals in accordance with Article 10, of the Convention on Consular Relations which provides that; “Heads of consular posts are appointed by the sending Sate and admitted to exercise their functions by the receiving State”. If the Defendant contests the status of the Plaintiff as a Consul, he cannot lay claim to it. Furthermore, assuming the status of the Plaintiff as Consul was established ( which in our opinion is not the case) an arrest and detention is possible by virtue of the provisions of Article 43 of the Convention on consular Relations which permits p. 21