committed as contained in the complaint, which acts according to the Respondents’ Counsel, are guaranteed by law. - Onah V. Okenwa {2010} 7 NWLR pt 1194 p 512 - Section 42 of the EFCC {establishment} Act, 2004 They submitted that where bail is guaranteed and the applicant cannot provide a surety, his subsequent continued detention because of failure to provide a surety cannot constitute a breach of the applicant’s constitutional right. - Ene V. Bassey {2014} LPELR 23524 They submitted that by exhibits EFCC 1-3 annexed to the counter affidavit, the applicant’s long stay in their custody, was due to the applicant’s failure to satisfy the bail conditions as contained in the provisional bail conditions document marked as exhibit EFFCC 1 annexed to the Respondents’ counter affidavit. They finally urge the court to dismiss the application for lack of merit. At this juncture, it is very important to note that from the averments in the applicant’s supporting affidavit and the annextures annexed thereunder, the averments in the Respondents counter affidavit and annextures annexed thereunder as well as submissions of both applicant’s counsel and that of the respondents, the fact that the applicant was detained by the Respondents is not in dispute. The only dispute between the parties regarding the detention of the applicant, is that while the applicant alleged that he was detained by the Respondents from 9th – 20th March, 2020, 11