“12. That with reference to paragraph 10 of the 1st respondent’s counter affidavit is not true. And in furtherance to this, it is irrelevant because the applicant is fighting for his Fundamental Human Rights infringed by the 2nd and 3rd respondents on the behest act of 1st respondent.” As earlier reproduced in this judgment and at the risk of repeating myself, paragraph 10 of the 1st respondent’s counter affidavit reads:“10. That in my present and indeed other on lookers, inspector Bala Bello attempted to arrest the said Fahad Umar, but the applicant interrupted the arrest and with his (applicant) help, Fahad Umar run and entered their house and therefore cannot be arrested at that point.” The foregoing paragraph 12 of the applicant’s further and better affidavit in response to the 1st respondent’s counter affidavit, is substantially the same with paragraph 13 of the applicant’s further and better affidavit in response to the 2nd and 3rd respondents’ counter affidavit. Furthermore, paragraphs 10 and 12 of the applicant’s further and better affidavit which are responses to the averments contained in paragraph 5 (c) and (d) of the 2nd and 3rd respondents’ counter affidavit, are also evasive because they did not specifically controverted or disputed the claim of the 2nd and 3rd respondents as to why the applicant was arrested and detained before the First Information Report was prepared against the applicant for the offence of screening of offender as shown by exhibit “POL.B” annexed to the 2nd and 3rd respondents’ counter affidavit. 17