As rightly submitted by the Respondents’ Counsel although REP Rules were designed to advance the essence of human rights as guaranteed by the constitution, they were not intended to be used as a shield to any person from criminal investigation and possible prosecution. - Hassan V. EFCC (Supra) - AG. Anambra State V. UBA (Supra). - Ajoku V. EFCC (2018) LPELR 46692. In the case of UZOR KALU V. FRN (2016) LPELR 40108, the Supreme Court held that a court order which is capable of preventing law enforcement agency from conducting criminal investigation against a suspect, is a creeping order. One can therefore see reason why in a plethora of cases, it has been held that the right to personal liberty guaranteed by the constitution under Section 35 of the CFRN 1999 as amended is not absolute as it can be deprived temporarily where a person is reasonably suspected to have committed a crime. - Ekwenugo V. FRN (2007) 3 NWLR pt. 1021 p. 209. - Dakubo Asari V. FRN (2007) 12 NWLR pt. 1048 p. 320. - Hassan V. EFCC (Supra) - Sambo V. Nig. Army Council (2017) 7 NWLR pt. 1565 p. 400. By paragraph 12 of the Respondents’ counter affidavit and the contents of Exhibit EFCC4, it is very clear that the Applicant was invited by the Respondents as a result of the petition against him lodged by one Dr. Hassan A. Bodinga in connection with the offence of Criminal Breach of Trust in respect of which the Respondents have no option than to discharge their legal obligations. Page 11 of 12