MEHTA v. IGP & ANOR

Judgment

ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment) : This appeal emanated from the judgment of the Federal High Court, Kano, in FHC/KN/CS/33/2017, delivered on 20th June, 2017 by Hon. Justice J.K. Dagat, wherein the trial Court granted the reliefs sought by the Applicant in the Fundamental Rights action, fought under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules.

At the trial Court, Applicant (now 2nd Respondent) had sought the following reliefs: (1) A declaration that the arrest of the Applicant by the officers/agents/subordinates of the monitoring unit of the 1st Respondent on the 15th day of February, 2017 upon an alleged complaint of the 2nd Respondent through his Counsel against the Applicant on allegation of fraud with regard to the running of Veee Oil Resources Limited which this Honourable Court has restrained the 2nd Respondent from interfering with the running and control of the affairs of Vee Oil Resources Limited pending the determination of the substantive suit before the Court ‘7’ Federal High Court, Abuja, F.C.T made on 7th day of July, 2015, violates the Applicant’s Fundamental Rights to dignity of his person, personal liberty, presumption of innocence and freedom of movement guaranteed and protected under Sections 34, 35 and 41 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, (as amended) and Articles 5, 6 and 12 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap A.9 LFN 2004. (2) A declaration that continuous detention of the Applicant by the officers/agents/subordinates of the 1st Respondent at force CID Headquarters, Abuja of the 1st Respondent, since on 15th day of February, 2017 on the prompting of the 2nd Respondent, without any prior investigation and/or charging him to Court for any substantive offence since the 15th day of February, 2017 till now, is a gross violation of the Applicant’s right to dignity of his person, personal liberty, right to fair hearing and right to freedom of movement as enshrined in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, (as amended) under the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap A.9 LFN 2004. (3) A declaration that the 1st Respondent has no statutory powers to advance, to arrest and detain a responsible citizen like the Applicant on mere complaint of the 2nd Respondent without any prior investigation or inquiry is an affront to the Applicant’s right to dignity of his person, personal liberty, right to fair hearing and right to freedom of movement. (4) An Order for the enforcement of the applicant’s fundamental rights to dignity of his person, personal liberty, right to fair hearing and right to freedom of movement and for further reasonable apprehension or likelihood of same being further breached by the respondents, particularly the agents/subordinates of the 1st Respondent. (5) An Order of this Honourable Court restraining the Respondents particularly the 1st Respondent by himself or through the instrumentality of his agents, servants, subordinates, privies or assigns by whatever name described or called, from further arresting and taking the Applicant outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, with a view to further detain the Applicant, in relation to the spurious allegation or complaint of the 2nd Respondent, either made directly by the 2nd Respondent or through any other person or body over a matter he is ordered to refrain from. (6) An Order of Perpetual Injunction Restraining the 1st Respondent by himself, servants, agents, subordinates, privies or assigns by whatever name called or described and whatever manner they may come, from further arrest, detention, intimidation, harassment and degrading treatment of the Applicant in relation to unverified and manipulated complaint made directly or indirectly by the 2nd Respondent in the presence of a subsisting Court order. (7) General damages in the sum of N100,000,000 (Hundred Million Naira only) against the 2nd Respondent for unlawfully setting the machinery of the 1st Respondent into action, when in fact he is not allowed to do so. (8) And for such Order or Further orders this Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance.