Judgment No. CCZ 12/14 11 Civil Appeal No. SC 327/12 delay was occasioned by this confusion and the agreement that Muderede be prosecuted first. The explanation in my opinion is acceptable. It is important that one does not take an armchair view of the situation that arose. In all the circumstances I am of the view that the State has proferred a reasonable explanation for the delay. (c) WHETHER APPLICANT ASSERTED HER RIGHTS It must be accepted that, in March 2008, when a further remand was refused, this was at the instance of the applicant. To that extent therefore she asserted her rights. However in 2009 the applicant also filed a complaint on the same facts. The police investigated both complaints. Two dockets were opened. Both the applicant and Muderede were alleging that the police were not impartial. Clearly during this time the applicant was aware, or ought to have been, that the State wanted to prosecute her. She is said to have approached Police Headquarters making a number of allegations against certain police officers. She did not, during this period, seek to assert her rights. Instead she went along and only after Muderede’s acquittal and the decision by the State to prosecute her did she then file the application to permanently stay the criminal proceedings against her. The totality of the circumstances suggests that whilst in 2008 she asserted her rights, from 2009 she did not and was content to go along in the hope that perhaps the criminal allegations would go away. (d) THE PREJUDICE OCCASSIONED BY THE DELAY