MRS. CHIDINMA OZURUMBA v. ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION
(2019)LCN/12988(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Friday, the 29th day of March, 2019
CA/L/406/2018
JUSTICES
MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
MRS. CHIDINMA OZURUMBA Appellant(s)
AND
ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION Respondent(s)
RATIO
THE BURDEN OF PROOF WHERE A PERSON ALLEGES THAT HE WAS WRONGFULLY ARRESTED AND DETAINED
The law is very well settled to the effect that when a person alleges that he was wrongfully arrested and detained, the burden is on the arrester to justify the lawfulness of the arrest and detention in question. Attorney General, Lagos State v. Mamman Keita (2016) LPELR ? 40163 (CA) Jim-Jaja v. Commissioner of Police & Ors (2011) 2 NWLR (pt. 1231) 375; 398; Madiebo & Ors. v. Nwankwo (2002) 1 NWLR (pt. 748) 283; (2001) NWLR ? 6965 (CA) @ pg. 8; Abiola v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (1995) 7 NWLR (pt. 405) 1; Commissioner of Police, Ondo State v. Obolo (1989) 5 NWLR (pt. 120) 130. PER YAKUBU, J.C.A.
WHETHER OR NOT A PERSON ALLEGED TO HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME SHOULD NOT BE SHIELDED BY THE COURTS
Furthermore, I remain of the considered opinion that no person who is alleged to have committed any crime should be shielded by the Courts from investigation and possible prosecution in respect of such crimes, on the authorities of this Court in Attorney General, Anambra State v. Chief Chris Uba (2005) 15 NWLR (pt. 947) 44 @ 67 and Abdullahi Hassan & 4 Ors. v. Economic and Financial Crimes Commission & 2 Ors (2014) 1 NWLR (pt 389) 616 and Chief Ayoku v. EFCC (supra). PER YAKUBU, J.C.A.
TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The appellant, a secretary in a law firm was arrested and detained by the respondent, on the ground that her boss – one Chief Kenneth Ajoku, who was wanted for an alleged crime, could not be found. Consequently, the appellant filed an application at the Federal High Court, Holden at Ikoyi, Lagos, for the enforcement of her fundamental rights of unlawful arrest, detention, forceful invasion, seizing and padlocking of her office, forceful seizure and confiscation of vital landed property documents from her office and continuous threat to her life by the agents of the respondent. The application was opposed by the respondent who filled a counter affidavit and a written address against it. The appellant thereafter filed a further affidavit and a reply on points of law. Learned counsel for the parties adopted their respective written addresses which were ventilated at the hearing of the application. In his ruling, the learned trial judge found for the respondent and dismissed the application for lacking in merits. The appellant, not unnaturally felt aggrieved by the decision against her
1
and approached this Court, armed with a notice of appeal against the decision handed down by the Court below on 30th June, 2017. The appeal was anchored on three grounds.
In order to activate the prosecution of the appeal, the appellant’s brief of argument, which was settled by Olukoya Ogungbeje, Esq., and S.A. Olaleye, Esq., dated 26th September, 2018 was filed on 5th October, 2018. In response thereto, the respondent?s brief of argument, prepared by Kayode Oni, Esq., and Temitope Banjo, Esq., dated 22nd November, 2018 was filled on 29th November, 2018. Thereafter, the appellant’s reply brief was dated and filed on 5th February, 2019.
Learned appellant’s counsel identified three issues for the determination of the appeal, namely:
1. Whether the learned trial judge was right when he dismissed the appellant’s fundamental right suit for lacking in merits. (Ground One).
2. Whether the learned trial judge was right when he held that the respondent acted within its powers in the arrest and detention of the appellant when there is no petition or complaint whatsoever against the appellant to the respondent. (Ground Two).
2
3. Whether the learned trial judge was right when he considered and relied on the contradictory and conflicting averments or depositions in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent. (Ground Three).
On its part, the respondents nominated two issues for the resolution of the appeal, to wit:
1. Whether the respondent has the mandate to investigate the allegations against the appellant. (Grounds one, two and three).
2. Whether the appellant’s fundamental human right under the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria was breached by the respondent. (Grounds 1 and 3) or whether the lower Court was wrong to have dismissed the appellant’s Originating Motion for the enforcement of the appellant’s fundamental human right.
Upon my perusal of all the processes filed and exchanged by the parties at the Court below and the ruling by the learned trial judge, I am satisfied that the three issues formulated by appellant’s learned counsel, will suffice to resolve this appeal. They shall be considered and determined together.
Appellant’s Arguments:
The gravamen of the appellant’s contentions is that there
3
was no basis for the arrest, detention, invasion and padlocking of the appellant’s office and the forceful seizure of some documents from the appellant’s office by the respondent, when the offence for which the appellant was apprehended, was not committed by her, but allegedly by somebody else. Furthermore, it was contended that since there was no petition against the appellant who was only a mere secretary in the office of the person who was being looked for by respondent, for an alleged offence, there was no justification for the invasion and breach of the appellant’s fundamental rights by the respondent. Learned appellant’s counsel relied on the authorities of African Continental Bank v. Mrs Mary Okonkwo (1997) 1 NWLR (pt.480) 194 @ 205-207; Jim- Jaja v. C. O.P. & Ors (2011) 2 NWLR (pt. 1231) 375 @ 398; Odiba v. Azege (1998) 9 NWLR (pt.566) 370, in support of his submissions.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The tenor of the respondent’s submissions is that the respondent is statutorily empowered by virtue of Sections 6, 7, 8, 13, 38, 41 and 46 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act, 2004, to investigate all cases of
4
economic and financial crimes reported to it for investigation and possible prosecution where a prima facie case is established. And that based upon a petition received by the respondent against one Chief Kenneth Ajoku, in respect of some fraudulent dealings which was found weighty, the respondent invited the said Chief Kenneth Ajoku and subsequently visited his office and he was not there. That it was the appellant who volunteered and followed the operatives of the respondent to their office and that the appellant was neither arrested, harassed, oppressed, detained nor incarcerated by the operatives of the respondent. The respondent contended that in the performance of its statutory role of investigations into economic and financial crimes, the Courts do not have the power to shield any suspect from being investigated. It was further submitted to the effect that the appellant did not place sufficient materials before the Court below to show that there were acts of the respondent which were aimed at contravening her fundamental rights, hence she failed to prove that her rights were infringed upon by the respondents. Reliance was placed by the learned
5
respondent’s counsel on the authorities of Fawehinmi v. IGP (2000) 7 NWLR (pt.665) 481 @ 519-521; Ekwenugo v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2001) 6 NWLR (pt.708) 171 @ 185; Dokubo Asari v. FRN (2007) 12 NWLR (pt.1048) 320 @ 360; Attorney -General of Anambra State v. UBA (2005) 15 NWLR (pt.947) 44 @ 67; Peter v. Okoye (2002) 3 NWLR (pt.755) 529 @ 537.
Resolution of issues:
The reliefs sought by the appellant at the Court below, are to wit:
(a) A DECLARATION that the arrest, harassment and detention of the Applicant by the armed operatives of the Respondent on the … of May 2017 without any lawful excuse is illegal, wrongful, oppressive, unlawful, unconstitutional as it violates the Applicant?s fundamental rights as guaranteed under Section 33, 34, 35 and 36 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
(b) A DECLARATION that the forceful sealing and padlocking of the Applicant?s office situated at No. 23 Road, O Close, Block 2, Flat 2, Festac Town, Lagos State by the armed operatives and agents of the Respondent without any Court order is illegal, wrongful, unlawful, and unconstitutional as it violates the
6
Applicant?s fundamental rights as guaranteed under Section 36, 43 and 44 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
(c) A DECLARATION that the threat and continuous threat of arrest and detention of the Applicant by the Respondent without cause is illegal, wrongful, unlawful, unconstitutional as it violates the Applicant?s fundamental rights as guaranteed under Section 33, 34, 35 and 36 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
(d) A DECLARATION that the threat and continuous threat to the life of the Applicant by the Respondent without cause is illegal, wrongful, unlawful, unconstitutional as it violates the Applicant?s fundamental rights as guaranteed under Section 33 and 36 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
(e) AN ORDER compelling the Respondent to tender a written apology and pay the sum of N100, 000,000.00 (One Hundred Million Naira) as general and exemplary damages for the threat to life and rights, arrest, detention, harassment, embarrassment, inconvenience, forceful sealing of the Applicant?s office without any Court Order.
7
(f) AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the Respondent, whether itself, its agents, officers, servants or privies or anybody deriving authority from it by whatever name called from further harassing, intimidating, arresting, detaining, threatening, inviting, investigating, charging, seizing or taking any untoward action against the Applicant on any fact connected with or related to the facts of this case.
(g) SUCH FURTHER ORDER OR OTHER ORDERS as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this case.
GROUNDS UPON WHICH THE RELIEFS ARE SOUGHT:
a. That there has been grave constitutional infraction perpetrated by the Respondent against the Applicant.
b. The Applicant was arrested and detained without lawful excuse for being a secretary in a law firm of her boss.
c. That the Applicant was arrested and detained in lieu of another person that is against the law.
d. That the Respondent actions have infringed upon the Applicant fundamental rights to life, personal liberty, freedom of movement and dignity of human person.
e. That the Applicant?s life is being threatened for being a secretary to
8
her boss in a law firm.
f. That the Applicant only offence is hinged on the fact that she is a secretary in her boss law firm.
g. That the Applicant life in under an imminent threat and danger.
h. That the agents incarcerate and employee of her of the Respondents have threatened to arrest, detain, dehumanize the Applicant for handling being an employee or boss.
i. That on the 4th of May 2017 at about 4: 30 pm the armed agents and operatives of the Respondent stormed and forcefully invaded the office law firm where the Applicant works and ransacked the office without Court order or any justifiable reason.
j. That the armed operatives of the Respondent forcefully seized, confiscated and carted away vital documents from the office without any Court order
k. That the Applicant office was forcefully sealed and padlocked by the armed operatives of the Respondent without any Court order
l. The constitutional safeguards to persons alleged to have committed any offence are sacrosanct and must be jealously guarded by the Court.
m. That the Applicant has her fundamental rights protected and guaranteed under the 1999 Constitution
9
of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (As amended).
n. That the Respondent is a creation of the law and must act within the limit of the law.
o. That the armed operatives of the Respondent have no rights to violate the provision of the constitution or violate the rights of the Applicant under whatever guise.
p. The Applicant has not committed any offence to warrant the infringement of her rights by the Respondents.
q. That the Applicant is entitled to the reliefs claimed in this case.
There is an affidavit of 30 paragraphs in support of the application. The respondents filed a counter affidavit of 16 paragraphs in denial of the appellant’s allegations against them. Thereafter, the appellant filed a further affidavit of 11 paragraphs.
The entrenchment of fundamental rights and the mode of enforcement of their breaches in the Nigerian Constitutions over the years, undoubtedly underscores its importance and the need to zealously protect the sanctity of human life and the liberty of every Nigerian citizen, as guaranteed under Section 35 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended. Therefore, the Courts
10
do not shirk their responsibilities in ensuring that the human rights of the citizens are not compromised and on no account should such rights be swept under the carpet or capriciously tampered with by any person, government or any governmental agency under any guise, without a lawful justification. In Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Edition, at page 697, the phrase: “fundamental right” is defined as:
“1. A right derived from natural or fundamental law.
2. Constitutional law. A significant component of liberty, encroachments of which are vigorously tested by Courts to ascertain the soundness of purported governmental justifications.”
The Supreme Court, in espousing the ideals and quite essence of fundamental rights inRansome ? Kuti & Ors v. Attorney General of the Federation & Ors (1985) LPELR – 2940 (SC) @ pages 333-34, per his Lordship, Eso, JSC., succinctly stated thus:
“What is the nature of a fundamental right? It is a right which stands above the ordinary laws of the land and which in fact is antecedent to the political society itself. It is a primary condition to a civilized existence and what has been done by our
11
Constitution, since independence, starting with the Independence Constitution, that is, the Nigeria (Constitution) Order in Council 1960 up to the present Constitution, that is, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979 (the latter does not in fact apply to this case: it is the 1963 Constitution that applies) is to have these rights enshrined in the Constitution so that the rights could be “immutable” to the extent of the “non-immutability” of the Constitution itself. It is not in all countries that the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to the citizen are written into the Constitution. For instance, in England, where there is no written constitution, it stands to reason that a written code of fundamental rights could not be expected. But notwithstanding, there are fundamental rights. The guarantee against inhuman treatment, as specified in Section 19 of the 1963 Constitution, would, for instance, appear to be the same as some of the fundamental rights guaranteed in England, contained in the Magna Carter 1215 – Articles 19 and 40 which provide – “no freeman may be taken or imprisoned, or disused of his freehold or liabilities in free customs or be
12
outlawed or exiled or in any way molested nor judged or condemned except by lawful judgment or in accordance with the law of the land And the crown or its ministers may not imprison or coerce the subject in an arbitrary manner”
Further see: H.R.H. Eze Sir. J.E. Ukaobasi v. Berthram Ezimora & Ors (2016) LPELR – 40174 (CA).
Unarguably, by virtue of the provision of Section 35 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended, every person shall be entitled to his personal liberty and no person shall be deprived of such liberty save for the purpose of bringing him before a Court in execution of order of the Court or upon reasonable suspicion of his having committed a criminal offence; or to such extent as may be reasonably necessary to his committing a criminal offence. It is glaring to me that the above provision of Section 35 (1) of the Constitution, does not suggest or guarantee absolute liberty to any person. This has been the position of this Court which was reiterated in Dokubo – Asari v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2007) 12 NWLR (pt.1045) 320 @ 360, that:
“The above provisions of Section 35 of the Constitution
13
leave no one in doubt that the section is not absolute. Personal liberty of an individual within the contemplation of Section 36 of the Constitution is a qualified right in the con of this particular case by virtue of Subsection (i) (c), thereof which permits restriction on individual liberty in the course of judicial inquiry on where, rightly as in this case, the appellant was arrested and put under detention upon reasonable suspicion of having committed a felony. A person?s liberty, as in this case, can also be curtailed in order to prevent him from committing further offence(s). It is any belief as well that if every person accused of felony can hide under the canopy of Section 35 of the Constitution to escape lawful detention, then an escape route to freedom is easily and richly made available to persons suspected to have committed serious crimes and that will not augur well for the peace, progress, prosperity and tranquility of the society. I find support in so saying from Irikefe?s JSC (as he then was) earlier pronounced in the case of Echeazu v. Commissioner of Police (1974) NMLR 308 at page 314.”
14
In the instant matter, the depositions by the appellant at paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 12, 13, 17 and 19 of the affidavit in support of the application for the enforcement of her fundamental rights indicate that some armed operatives of the respondent visited and arrested her from the office and law chambers of Kenneth Chukwuemeka & Co at No 23 Road, O Close, Block 2, Flat 2, Festac Town, Lagos State, on Thursday 4th May, 2017. In the counter affidavit deposed to by Ayodele Samuel at pages 37 ? 40 of the record of appeal, on behalf of the respondent, on 24th May, 2017, the depositions by the appellant at paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 12, 13, 17 and 19 of the affidavit in support of the appellant?s application, were not specifically denied nor controverted by Ayodele Samuel, except that at paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, it was deposed that the appellant was never arrested nor detained by the respondent. However, the deposition at paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit is revealing and instructive. It says:
?10. That contrary to paragraph 28 of the affidavit in support, Mrs. Chidinma Ozurumba was arrested and after the completion of her
15
statement on 4th May, 2017 she was immediately granted bail and released to her husband. She was never detained, harassed or intimidated. Now produced, shown to me and marked exhibit EFCC is a copy of the bail recognized to show that she was released same day.?
?It is not difficult to deduce from the deposition at paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit of Ayodele Samuel, reproduced above, that the appellant was arrested on 4th May, 2017 by the operatives of the respondent who visited the office of the appellant?s principal ? Kenneth Chukwuemeka, but that she was released to her husband on the same day. However, in his own counter affidavit deposed to on the behalf of the respondent on 5th June, 2017, one Makinde Adedayo, at paragraph 4 thereof, denied the appellant?s depositions at paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 of the affidavit in support of her application for the enforcement of her fundamental rights against the respondent. Curiously, at paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit of Makinde Adedayo, he stated that the appellant was never arrested, but that she
16
?volunteered to follow? the 1st respondent?s operatives ?to enable her shed more light to the petition.? He also indicated that the appellant was not detained as she was released on the same date. Furthermore, at paragraph 10 of his counter affidavit, Makinde Adedayo, deposed to the fact effect that the appellant was never detained but released on the same date. Now, if the appellant willingly volunteered and followed the operatives of the respondent to the latter?s office, why was there the need for her to have been released on bail, on the same date, if she had not been arrested by the operatives of the respondent in the first place? To my mind, the counter affidavits by Ayodele Samuel and Makinde Adedayo, apart from being at cross purposes with each other, contain half truths which were designed to pull the wool over the face of the Court. And amazingly, the learned trial judge was befogged by the wooly counter affidavits at the instance of the respondent.
?I am satisfied that the appellant was arrested by the respondent?s operatives when they stormed the office/chambers of Kenneth Chukwuemeka Ajoku on 4th May,
17
2017 at No. 23, O Close, Block 2, Flat 2, Festac Town, Lagos State, from where she was taken to the respondent?s office and detained before she was released on bail to her husband on the same date. The Black?s Law Dictionary, 8th Edition @ page 116 defined ?arrest? thus:
?arrest ? 1. A seizure or forcible restraint. 2. The taking or keeping of a person in custody by legal authority, esp. in response to a criminal charge; specif. the apprehension of someone for the purpose of securing the administration of the law, esp of bringing that person before a Court.?
The question that arises from the arrest of the appellant by the respondent?s operatives on 4th May, 2017, would be: why was she arrested? Was any criminal allegation made against her vide the petition written against Chief Kenneth Chukwuemeka Ajoku by the residents at Block 1, T Close, 3rd Avenue, Festac Town, Lagos State, dated 2nd May 2017? Why was the appellant arrested because of the unavailability of Chief Kenneth Chukwuemeka Ajoku in his office, on 4th May, 2017? Is it the law that because Chief Kenneth Chukwuemeka Ajoku could not be seen in
18
his office, that the appellant, his employee ? secretary, should be arrested as a prey in his stead? These are the questions that the respondent ought to have addressed in its defence to the appellant?s claims against it. The law is very well settled to the effect that when a person alleges that he was wrongfully arrested and detained, the burden is on the arrester to justify the lawfulness of the arrest and detention in question. Attorney General, Lagos State v. Mamman Keita (2016) LPELR ? 40163 (CA) Jim-Jaja v. Commissioner of Police & Ors (2011) 2 NWLR (pt. 1231) 375; 398; Madiebo & Ors. v. Nwankwo (2002) 1 NWLR (pt. 748) 283; (2001) NWLR ? 6965 (CA) @ pg. 8; Abiola v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (1995) 7 NWLR (pt. 405) 1; Commissioner of Police, Ondo State v. Obolo (1989) 5 NWLR (pt. 120) 130.
I have considered the respondent?s submissions to the effect that it was exercising its power of investigations into the fraudulent allegations against Chief Kenneth Chukwuemeka Ajoku by some residents at Block 1, T Close, 3rd Avenue, Festac Town, Lagos State, vide their petition dated 2nd May, 2017, which is shown at pages
19
21 ? 23 of the record of appeal. The enormity of the respondent?s powers with respect to investigation and prosecution of allegations bordering on economic and financial crimes is undeniable and unquestionable. I recall that in the unreported Appeal No. CA/L/1365/2017 between Chief Keneth C. Ajoku v. Economic and Financial Crimes Commission & Ors., decided on 30th November, 2018, at pages 13 ? 15 thereof, I commented on the enormous powers of the respondent, thus:
?I think that it is expedient to examine again the powers of the 1st respondent as donated to it in Section 6 of the Economic and Financial Crimes (Establishment) Act, 2004, which provides, inter alia:
?The Commission shall be responsible for:
a) The enforcement and the due administration of the provisions of this Act.
b) the investigation of all financial crimes including advance fee fraud, money laundering, counterfeiting, illegal charge transfers, market fraud, fraudulent encashment of negotiable instruments, computer credit card fraud, contract scam, etc.
c) the co-ordination and enforcement of all economic and financial crimes laws and
20
enforcement of all functions conferred on any other person or authority;
d) the adoption of measures to identify, trace, freeze, confiscate or seize proceeds derived from terrorist activities, economic and financial crime related offences or the properties the value of which corresponds to such proceeds;
e) the adoption of measures to eradicate the commission of economic and financial crimes;
f) the adoption of measures which include coordinated preventive and regulatory actions, introduction and maintenance of investigative and control techniques on the prevention of economic and financial related crimes;
g) The facilitation of rapid exchange of scientific and technical information and the conduct of joint operations geared towards the eradication of economic and financial crimes?.
I have had cause also to comment on the functions and enormous powers of the respondent in Rev. Fr. (Dr.) E. C. S. Obiorah v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2016) 6 C.A.R. 219 (CA); (2016) LPELR – 40965 (CA) @ 28 – 33, thus:
“I have deeply considered the appellant’s contention to the effect that by virtue of the interpretation of “economic and
21
financial crimes” in Section 46 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act, 2004, the fraud and other crimes enumerated in the said Section 46 which pertain to “economic activities and its administration”, should be the concern of the EFCC and not to meddle into offences that may be committed and affect the economic activities of private individuals. I think the simple answer to the appellant’s contention is at Section 1(2)(c) of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act, 2004 which provides, thus: “2. The Commission -(C). is the designated Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) in Nigeria, which is charged with the responsibility of coordinating the various institutions involved in the fight against money laundering and enforcement of all laws dealing with economic and financial crimes in Nigeria.” The Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006 and the offences created by and under it, to my mind, constitute economic and financial crimes in Nigeria. Those offences such as obtaining property by false pretences, no doubt, impact very negatively on the economic and financial fortunes and credibility of
22
Nigeria. Therefore, they do not necessarily need to relate to the economic activities of government and its administration alone, for perpetrators of such criminal offences, to be investigated and prosecuted at the instance of the EFCC?.
I should say that I still maintain the above stand. Furthermore, I remain of the considered opinion that no person who is alleged to have committed any crime should be shielded by the Courts from investigation and possible prosecution in respect of such crimes, on the authorities of this Court in Attorney General, Anambra State v. Chief Chris Uba (2005) 15 NWLR (pt. 947) 44 @ 67 and Abdullahi Hassan & 4 Ors. v. Economic and Financial Crimes Commission & 2 Ors (2014) 1 NWLR (pt 389) 616 and Chief Ayoku v. EFCC (supra). However, on the facts and circumstances of the instant case where there was no allegation against the appellant who was unlawfully arrested and detained for an alleged crime committed by Chief Kenneth Chukwuemeka Ajoku, her employer, I cannot accept the respondent?s contention to the effect that the arrest and detention of the appellant was unquestionable. I am convinced that the
23
appellant?s arrest and detention was unlawful. The respondent did not justify its actions which were tantamount to a breach of the appellant?s fundamental right to personal liberty as enshrined in Section 35(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended. It is immaterial that the appellant was released on the same date that she was arrested. The period of time that she was deprived of her fundamental right to personal liberty, however short or brief that the deprivation lasted, is immaterial. Jim-jaja v. Commissioner of Police (2011) 2 NWLR (pt. 1231) 375.
?For all I have been saying, I resolve the three issues discussed in this judgment in favour of the appellant. In effect, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the ruling rendered by I.N. Buba, J., at the Federal High Court, Lagos Division, Lagos, in re- Suit No: FHC/L/CS/803/2017 is hereby set aside. In its stead, the appellant?s application succeeded in its entirety. Therefore, reliefs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (f) are granted. With respect to relief (e) the sum of N5, 000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) only is awarded to the appellant, as damages against the
24
respondent.
Costs of the appeal is assessed at N200, 000.00 in favour of the appellant, against the respondent.
MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.C.A.: I agree.
JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.C.A.: My learned brother TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU JCA. afforded me the opportunity of reading before today a draft copy of the lead judgment just delivered.
?I adopt the judgment as mine with nothing further to add.
25
Appearances:
O.E. Ogungbeje, Esq.For Appellant(s)
For Respondent(s)
Appearances
O.E. Ogungbeje, Esq.For Appellant
AND
For Respondent
