the Respondents against the Applicant in which the Applicant featured prominently. It was the submission of the Respondents that the Applicant was duly informed of the reason for his invitation relating to allegations made against him, and has accordingly made statement in response which was attached to the counter affidavit as Exhibit EFCC1. They further submitted that the Applicant after he made statement, was later granted administrative bail on the date he was invited which is 27/10/2020. The Respondents submitted that by the provision of Section 35(1)(c) CFRN 1999 as amended, the right to personal liberty of the Applicant, is not absolute as it can be deprived temporarily where the Applicant is reasonably suspected to have committed a crime. - Hassan V. EFCC (2014) 1 NWLR pt. 1389 p. 633. They submitted that FREP Rules 2009 were not designed to be used as a shield against criminal investigation and prosecution. - Hassan V. EFCC (Supra) - Ajoku V. EFCC (2018) LPELR 46692. - AG Anambra State V. UBA (2005) 15 NWLR pt. 947. - Section 6(b) EFCC Establishment Act, 2004. Respondents’ Counsel finally urge the court to dismiss the application. It is trite law that any person who alleges that any of his rights under Chapter 4 of the CFRN 1999 as amended has been, or is being, or is likely to be breached, may apply to the High Court for redress. Page 7 of 12