Authored By: Eunice Dyep Bulus
Philomath University Abuja
This case was initially heard at the Federal High Court, Awka, Anambra State, and later appealed to the Court of Appeal, Enugu Division. At the trial court, the presiding judge was Hon. Justice I.B. Gafa. The appellate judgment was delivered by Abubakar Sadiq Umar, J.C.A. The matter was heard by a regular appellate bench of the Court of Appeal. The judgment at the Court of Appeal was delivered in 2019.
PARTIES INVOLVED
The Appellants (Plaintiffs) in this case were Chief Maurice Ebo and Chief Sunday Nwoka, who were dissatisfied with the judgment of the Federal High Court, Awka. The Respondents (Defendants) were Mr. Chinedu Okeke, Humphrey Okoye, Olisa Onyeka (Supol Manager, Force Headquarters, Abuja), DSP Ephraim (Force Headquarters), The Inspector General of Police, and The Commissioner of Police, Anambra State.
FACTS OF THE CASE
At the trial court, the Appellants argued that the 1st to 3rd Respondents invaded their office with the aid of the 4th and 5th Respondents without any legal backing. They contended that the right to conduct an investigation of the complaint by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents was ordered by the 6th Respondent, who was vested with power by the 7th Respondent.
The Appellants were subsequently arrested by the 4th and 5th Respondents using force and were later stripped naked while videos and pictures were taken of them. They argued that this act was unlawful. The Appellants further claimed that their items, worth thousands of naira, were lost, and they continued to live in fear due to threats made to their lives by the Respondents.
The Respondents (1–3) countered that the Appellants were engaged in fraudulent and criminal activities during their tenure as Chairman and Secretary, respectively, of the Nkwelle Ogidi Community Development Association. They alleged that the Appellants had created a company with a similar name to the Association in order to divert proceeds from land sales and defraud buyers for personal gain. The Respondents denied stripping the Appellants naked or threatening them.
The 4th to 6th Respondents asserted that the Appellants were arrested based on complaints lodged by the 1st to 3rd Respondents, which included allegations of fraud, conspiracy, and embezzlement of community funds. They maintained that the arrest was properly executed pursuant to a warrant issued by the Chief Magistrate Court 1, FCT Abuja.
The 7th Respondent denied any participation in the arrest, stating that no police officer from their office was involved.
ISSUES RAISED
ISSUES BY THE APPELLANTS
- Whether the Appellants had made out a case of breach of fundamental human rights that ought to be enforced from the adopted affidavit evidence.
- Assuming the Appellants’ arrest was founded on good grounds, whether the manner of arrest was lawful and did not amount to an infringement of their fundamental rights under Section 34 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
ISSUES BY THE RESPONDENTS
- Based on the evidence before the court, whether the trial court was right to dismiss the Appellants’ case.
- Whether the Respondents were right to petition regarding the nature and circumstances of the case.
- Whether there was any violation of the Appellants’ fundamental rights that would entitle them to relief.
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
The Appellants maintained that their rights under Sections 34(1), 35(1)(c), and 41(1) of the 1999 Constitution were infringed. They alleged they were unlawfully detained, assaulted, battered, stripped naked, and had their items stolen. They sought declaratory reliefs for enforcement of their rights.
The Respondents (1–3) argued that their petition was made in good faith to the police based on credible allegations of fraud, and that they had no hand in the Appellants’ arrest or alleged torture. The 4th–6th Respondents contended that the arrest was done lawfully pursuant to a valid warrant and within the powers of the police. The 7th Respondent insisted it had no involvement in the matter.
JUDGMENT / FINAL DECISION
At the trial court, the judge held that the Appellants had failed to prove their case and accordingly dismissed the suit.
Dissatisfied, the Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal, Enugu Division, praying for declarations that their arrest was unlawful, that the destruction of their property and stripping naked amounted to torture, and that their detention was an act of revenge violating their fundamental rights.
The Court of Appeal affirmed that the police acted within their lawful powers to arrest the Appellants based on a valid complaint and warrant. The supposed acts of torture were not proven beyond assertion. Ultimately,The Court of Appeal, presided over by Abubakar Sadiq Umar, J.C.A., dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the lower court.
LEGAL REASONING / RATIO DECIDENDI
The appellate court reaffirmed that the burden of proof in fundamental rights enforcement lies on the party alleging violation. The court observed that the Appellants’ affidavits conflicted with those of the Respondents and that the trial court could not choose one version over the other.
On the question of unlawful arrest, the court held that the arrest, carried out under a valid warrant, could not constitute a violation of rights. The complaint lodged by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents raised reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and the police acted within their powers under the law.
The court relied on several precedents, including:
- Okafor v. Lagos State Government & Anor (2016) LPELR-41066 (CA) – emphasizing the burden of proof on the applicant.
- Emonena & Anor v. IGP & Ors (2016) LPELR-41489 (CA) – affirming the lawful powers of police to arrest with or without warrant.
- Ayangoke & Anor v. Keystone Bank Ltd (2013) LPELR-21806 (CA) – limiting appellate review to issues raised at the lower court.
- Salihu v. Gana & Ors (2014) LPELR-23069 (CA) – confirming that arrest upon reasonable suspicion does not violate constitutional rights.
- Fajemirokun v. Commercial Bank Nig. Ltd (2009) LPELR-1231 (SC) – requiring detailed evidence for proof of alleged torture or inhumane treatment.
The court held that since the Appellants failed to provide specific details of their alleged torture, such as location, time, or witnesses, their claims were unsubstantiated. No witnesses or photographers were called to confirm the allegations.
Consequently, the court concluded that the Appellants failed to establish the infringement of their rights and therefore were not entitled to the reliefs sought.
CONCLUSION / OBSERVATIONS
This case centres on alleged violations of the rights to liberty, dignity of the human person, and freedom from torture or slavery. Although the Appellants’ claims, if true, revealed serious inhumane treatment, they failed to produce sufficient evidence to substantiate their allegations.
The case reinforces the principal ingredients on prima facie that mere allegations of rights violations must be supported by credible evidence, and on an exception to the right to liberty, where an arrest effected under lawful authority and reasonable suspicion of a crime does not amount to a breach of fundamental rights. Therefore, the reason why the appeal was accordingly dismissed.
