Judgment
EBIOWEI TOBI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the ruling and judgment of the Federal High Court of Nigeria, Maidugri Judicial Division, delivered by Hon. Justice M. T. Salihu on 10/07/2014 in Suit No. FHC/MG/CS/2/2014- Alhaji Bukar Yaganami vs Hon. Minister of Defence & Anor. The 1st Respondent, Applicant in the lower Court alleged he was unlawfully arrested and kept in the custody of the Appellant without bail hence the suit for the enforcement of his fundamental right was instituted.
The 1st Respondent filed the originating motion seeking for a declaration (among other reliefs sought) that his continued arrest and detention without just cause was illegal and unconstitutional and consequently sought for an order of his production before the trial Court.
In the judgment of the lower Court found at pages 200-212 of the records, particularly on pages 209-210 His Lordship held: “From the affidavit evidence before the Court, I am bound to find that the detention of the Applicant from the 19th January, 2013 for a period of over one year and the half is not supported by the Constitution. Indeed it is unconstitutional. The detention is in breach of the clear provisions of the Constitution which guarantee the fundamental rights of all people living in the country.
Section 35(4) provides: “Any person who is arrested or detained in accordance with Sub-section vi(c) of this Section shall be brought before a Court of law within a reasonable time, and if he is not tried within a period of (a) two months from the date of his arrest or detention in the case of a person who is in custody and not entitled to bail, he shall (without prejudice to any further proceedings that may be brought against him) be released either unconditionally or upon such condition as are reasonably necessary to ensure that he appears for trial at a later date”.
Reasonable time is explained in sub-paragraph (a) and (b)… In the light of the foregoing, the Appellant shall be released conditionally to ensure he appears before the Court for trial in case the Respondent turns to have a case against him …” The decision went in favour of the 1st Respondent who was the Applicant in the lower Court and against the Appellant who was 1st Respondent before the Court.
