AWAL v. NDLEA (2020)

AWAL v. NDLEA

(2020)LCN/14078(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Friday, March 27, 2020

CA/A/840/2018

Before Our Lordships:

Abdu Aboki Justice of the Court of Appeal

Adamu Jauro Justice of the Court of Appeal

Emmanuel Akomaye Agim Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

SANI AWAL APPELANT(S)

And

NATIONAL DRUG LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO

WHETHER OR NOT FAILURE TO FILE A RESPONDENT’S BRIEF IS MATERIAL TO AN APPEAL

I must add quickly, as established in an imprimatur of judicial authorities of this Court and the Apex Court that failure to file a Respondent’s Brief is immaterial as an Appellant, must succeed or fail, on the strength of his own Brief or case. See SKYE BANK & ANOR V. AKINPELU (2010) LPELR- 3073 (SC). PER JAURO, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT A COURT MUST CONFINE ITSELF TO THE ISSUES RAISED BY PARTIES BEFORE IT

Generally, a Court ought to confine itself to the issues raised by the parties in the determination of matters. However, where the issues are pluralized, or fragmented, or couched in such a manner as to obscure the crucial and real issues that would properly, adequately and finally determine the dispute, the Court would be entitled to distill such or other issues from the Grounds of Appeal filed. In such a situation, the Court of Appeal has the power and discretion to formulate issues from the Grounds of Appeal, which will determine the vital question between the parties. See KALU V. UZOR (2006) 8 NWLR (PT. 981) 66. PER JAURO, J.C.A.

THE RULES GUIDING ARREST AND DETENTION

The rules guiding arrest and detention are statutorily provided under Section 35 (4) (5) (6) and (7) the Constitution (supra). Section 35 (4) (5) (6) of the Constitution provides as follows:
35. Any person who is arrested or detained in accordance with subsection (1) (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 or is not entitled to bail; or
(b) three months from the date of his arrest or detention in the case of a person who has been released on bail, he shall (without prejudice to nay further proceedings that may be brought against him) be released either unconditionally or such conditions as are reasonably necessary to ensure that he appears for trial at a later date.
(5) In subsection (4) of this section, the expression “a reasonable time” means –
(a) in the case of an arrest or detention in any place where there is a Court of competent jurisdiction within a radius of forty kilometres, a period of one day; and (b) in any other case, a period of two days or such longer period as in the circumstances may be considered by the Court to be reasonable.(Underlining mine for emphasis)
(6) Any person who Is unlawfully arrested or detained shall be entitled to compensation and public apology from the appropriate authority or person; and in this subsection, “the appropriate authority or person” means an authority or person specified by law. PER JAURO, J.C.A.

ADAMU JAURO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal is against the decision of the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja delivered by Hon. Justice A. l. Chikere on the 27th day of April, 2016 in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/863/2018 wherein the Appellant’s reliefs sought in his application for the enforcement of his fundamental right were refused.

BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS
By an Application for the enforcement of the fundamental right dated 18th September, 2017 and filed on the same date, the Appellant as Applicant prayed for the following reliefs:
“1. A DECLARATION that the detention of the Applicant by the Respondent from 2nd day of April, 2017 to 22nd day of My 2017, when he was only arraigned in this Honourable Court in criminal proceedings (i.e. he was arraigned on the 22nd day of May, 2017) which was fifty-one (51) days inclusive of the day of arrest, without bail without charging him to Court for trial as required by law, constitutes a violation of the applicant’s fundamental rights guaranteed under Section 35(1) (a-f) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and

Article 6 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights as ratified by the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act 1990 and was therefore unconstitutional, unlawful, illegal, null and void.
2. A DECLARATION that: the Respondent’s officers’ beating of the applicant with wooden staff (like that used by Fulani herdsmen); the Respondent’s officers’ slapping of the applicant in his ears; the Respondent’s officers‘ kicking and smashing of the applicant with the Respondent’s officers’ foot’ boot(s) – which rendered the applicant to sustain injuries, constitute violation of the applicant’s fundamental rights guaranteed under Sections 34, and 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and Articles 5, 6 and 7 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights as ratified by the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, 1990 and is therefore unconstitutional, unlawful, illegal, null and void.
3. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court compelling the Respondent to pay to the applicant the sum of Fifty

Million Naira (N50,000,000.00) being general and exemplary damages against it for breach of the applicant’s fundamental rights to personal liberty, severe torture, psychological trauma, e.t.c.
4. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court compelling the Respondent to offer and render public apology to the applicant to be published in two widely circulated National Newspaper for the unlawful breach of the constitutional rights of the applicant’s right to personal liberty.
5. And for such order of further order this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance(s).”

Attached to the application Is a Statement in Support containing the grounds upon which the reliefs are sought, a nine paragraph affidavit and a written address. The kernel of the Appellant’s grievance as gleaned from the affidavit in support of the application is that he was arrested by the Respondent’s officials on the allegation of drug suspected to be Indian-hemp with some other person. That even though the Respondent’s officials did not find any of the alleged drug on him, yet he was arrested and despite his plea to the Respondent officials that he

knew nothing about the allegation. He stated further that since he was arrested on 2nd day of April 2017, he has been in the Respondent’s custody at Gudu FCT within the jurisdiction of this Court without him being charged to Court. That he was only charged to Court for criminal proceedings on the 22nd day of May 2017 in Charge No. FCT/ABJ/CR/62/17 between the FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA V. ABDULLAHI AHMED AND ONE OTHER. And that by his calculation, he was kept in custody by the Respondent’s for (51) days.

In response to the depositions contained in the Appellant’s application, the gist of the Respondent’ case as contained in the Counter affidavit at pages 29 – 31 of the record of appeal is that based on information received from the office that the Applicant is a supplier of Cannabis Sativa at Kano – Zaria Parks Gwagwalada, Abuja, Officers of the Respondent, FCT Command conducted a search at the park where the drugs are being sold freely and in the process, the one Ahmed Abdullahi was arrested with 550 grammes of Cannabis sativa which was found on him and he admitted ownership. That on the basis of which he was arrested on 2nd day

of April 2017 and brought to the office for investigation and that while under investigation, he gave information about his supplier, the Appellant who was arrested on a later date but not on 2nd April 2017. It is also the case of the Respondent that the Appellant had since been charged to the Federal High Court, Abuja in charge No: FHC/AB/CR/6217/2017 together with the Abdullahi Ahmed and they were both arraigned on the 23rd of May 2017 before the Federal High Court 5 and they had no legal representation. That the detention of the Appellant for a longer period was because of the follow-up operation carried to arrest him to enable the officer properly investigate the allegation and prosecute the case appropriately. It is also the case of the Respondent that when the process of investigation was conducted, the Appellant and his accomplice were charged to Court on a charge dated the 10th day of April 2017 and filed on the 12th day of April 2017.

Upon hearing of the Application, the learned trial judge in dismissing the Appellant’s reliefs held at page 55 of the record that:
“The Defendant was arrested on reasonable suspicion that he has committed an

offence. He has been charged to Court before 2 months in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CR/64/2017.
The Applicant alleges that he was beaten, brutalized and inhumanly tortured. Damages are not granted as a matter of course, it must be proved. There is no proof of all allegations of inhuman treatment. Mere allegation is not sufficient to warrant a relief from the Court.
Accordingly the Applicant is not entitled to the reliefs sought.”

Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court, the Appellant invoked the appellate jurisdiction of this Honourable Court vide a Notice of appeal dated 4th July 2018 and filed on the same date. (See pages 62 – 67 of the record of appeal.)

In line with the Rules of this Honourable Court, the Appellant on the 25th September, 2018 filed his Brief of Argument dated 24th September, 2018. The Respondent did not file a Respondent Brief and vide an Order of this Court made on the 20th day of January, 2020, this appeal was heard on the Appellant’s Brief of argument alone. In the Appellant’s Brief settled by HAMEED AJIBOLA JIMOH ESQ., the following issues were distilled for the determination of this appeal to wit:

Whether the non-consideration of the Appellant’s further-affidavit and written address filed on point of law respectively dated and filed on the 7th day of November, 2017, and adopted by the Appellant’s Counsel as contained on the Records of Proceedings of 5th day of March, 2018, in its Ruling/Judgment does not amount to denying the appellant fair hearing in his suit?
ii. Whether the Respondent’s counter-affidavit and written address were not incurably and fundamentally defective and incompetent for the trial Court to have discountenanced and struck out same, Respondent’s Counsel’s seal and stamp approved by Nigerian Bar Association not having been affixed to the said processes, in compliance with Rule 10 of the Rules of Professional Conducts for Legal Practitioner, 2007 and same not having been regularized?
iii. Whether the provisions of Section 34(1)(c) relied on by the trial Court in refusing the Appellant’s reliefs was not misconstrued and or misapplied to the Appellant’s case by the trial Court?
iv. Whether considering the facts placed before the trial Court, the detention of the Appellant by the Respondent for

fifty-one (51) days in its custody without complying with the procedures permitted by law and without Court’s order permitting such detention is not a violation of the Appellant’s Constitutional rights guaranteed under Sections 34 and 35(1) (4) and (5) and 36(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and Articles 5; 6 and 7 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights as ratified by the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, 1990, 2004 (as amended) and is not therefore unconstitutional, unlawful, Illegal, null and void?
v. Whether having regards to the Appellant’s submissions in issues i-iv above, the Appellant is not entitled to reliefs 1, 3 and 4 sought In his application at the trial Court?”

The appeal was heard on the 2nd day of March, 2020 wherein learned counsel to the Appellant made oral adumbrations in respect to his posture In this appeal.

RESOLUTION
I have stated earlier on that the Respondent did not file a Respondent Brief and the appeal was heard on the Appellant’s brief alone. I must add quickly, as

established in an imprimatur of judicial authorities of this Court and the Apex Court that failure to file a Respondent’s Brief is immaterial as an Appellant, must succeed or fail, on the strength of his own Brief or case. See SKYE BANK & ANOR V. AKINPELU (2010) LPELR- 3073 (SC).

I have carefully examined the five issues distilled by the Appellant counsel and I consider issue No. 4 and 5 apt for the determination of the crucial issues in this appeal. Generally, a Court ought to confine itself to the issues raised by the parties in the determination of matters. However, where the issues are pluralized, or fragmented, or couched in such a manner as to obscure the crucial and real issues that would properly, adequately and finally determine the dispute, the Court would be entitled to distill such or other issues from the Grounds of Appeal filed. In such a situation, the Court of Appeal has the power and discretion to formulate issues from the Grounds of Appeal, which will determine the vital question between the parties. See KALU V. UZOR (2006) 8 NWLR (PT. 981) 66.

In the resolution of this appeal, issues 4 and 5 shall be taken together as

one. On issue 4, It is the submission of counsel that the detention of the Appellant by the Respondent for fifty-one (51) days in its custody without complying with the procedures permitted by law and without the Courts order permitting such detention is a violation of the Appellant’s Constitutional rights guaranteed under Sections 34 and 35 (1) (4) and (5) and 36(5) of the Constitution (supra) and Articles 5, 6 and 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights and is therefore unconstitutional, unlawful, illegal, null and void and that the trial Court was wrong not to have granted reliefs 1, 3 and 4 of the Appellant.

Counsel referred this Court to grounds 3, 4 and 5 of the application which formed the basis for the reliefs 1, 3 and 4 of the Appellant’s suit. He submitted that the facts of the Respondent’s officials’ action in detaining the appellant as stated in the affidavit and the further affidavit in support of the Appellant’s application, the Appellant has been deprived of his right to personal liberty as conferred by the Constitution. He referred this Court to the case of ONYIRIOHA V. I.G.P. (2009) 3 NWLR Pt.

1128 Pg. 342 at 347. It is his submission that Appellant was detained illegally by the Respondent and beyond a maximum of 48 hours by the Respondent allowed by law. Counsel submitted that the Respondent’s detention of the appellant is contrary to the Sections 8 (3) and (4) and Section 30 of the Administration of Criminal Justice, Act.

On issue No. 5, Counsel referred this Court to Sections 36(6) and 46(1) of the Constitution (supra) and argued that the Constitution allows the appellant to seek redress in the trial Court against the Respondent to enforce his fundamental rights.

In his final analysis, he urged this Court to allow the appeal, set aside the decision of the Court below and invoke Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act to grant the Appellant’s reliefs sought at the trial Court.

Section 46 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is the first constitutional provision that comes to mind in an action for the enforcement of a fundamental right. The section provides as that “Any person who alleges that any of the provisions of this Chapter has been, is being or likely to be contravened in any State in relation to

him may apply to a High Court in that State for redress.”
It was on the strength of the above provision that Appellant approached the Court below for the enforcement of his right. The Appellant’s grounds for bringing the application was that he was deprived of his right to dignity of human person to personal liberty and the presumption of innocence that enures him under Sections 34, 35 (1) and 36(5) right to dignity of human person of the Constitution (supra).

To determine whether or not the Appellant is entitled to the reliefs sought, recourse must be made to the entire gamut of affidavit evidence placed before the Court below. In the Affidavit in support of the Appellant’s application at pages 8 – 12 of the record of appeal, the following relevant facts were deposed to therein:
“7.
xiv. That since he was arrested on the 2nd day of April, 2017, he had been in the Respondent’s custody at Gudu FCT- Abuja, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, without the option of bail and without charging him to Court;
xv. That he was only charged to this Honourable Court for criminal proceedings on 22nd day of May, 2017 in

Charge No.: FCT/ABJ/CR/62/17, BETWEEN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA V. ABDULLAHI AHMED AND ONE OTHER, before Honourable Justice A.I. Chikere No. 5 of this Honourable Court;
xvi. That by his calculation, he has been in custody by the Respondent for fifty-one(51) days inclusive of the day of arrest and the day he was first arraigned in this Honourable Court in criminal proceedings…
xviii. That while he was in the Respondents custody, he was only offered two square meals daily – the first meal was offered at about 10am o‘ clock in the morning while second meal was offered about 5pm o’ clock in the evening daily;
xix. That while he was in the Respondent’s custody and since his arrest he was nor allowed and or given the opportunity to communicate with his family relatives and to contact his lawyer of his choice for his defence;
xx. That while he was in the Respondent’s custody, he was given the opportunity to brush his teeth and to take his bath and all other normal personal duty hygiene and was kept in the custody in the midst many other detained persons whose numbers were too many for him to count;…

Contrary to the above depositions, the Respondent in its Counter affidavit deposed to the following facts:
“3. That as a litigation officer of the Respondent, I have gone through the affidavit in support of the application and states that paragraphs 7 (vii, viii, ix, x, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, xv, xvi, xvii, xviii, xix, xx, xxi, xxiii, xxvi, xxvii, xxix and xxx), (as appearing on the process) are false and misleading.
4. That contrary to paragraphs 7 (vii, viii, ix, x, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, xv, xvi, xvii, xviii, xix, xx, xxi, xxiii, xxvi, xxvii, xxix and xxx), (as appearing on the process), I was informed by M.K. Jibrin, SNA, the investigation police officer in this case in our office on the 30th of October 2017 at about 3pm and I verily believe him to be true as follows:
(a) That based on information received from the police that the applicant is the supplier of cannabis sativa at Kano Zaria Park Gwagwalada, Abuja. Officers of the NDLEA, FCT Command which he was among conducted a search at the park where drugs are being sold freely and in the process the Abdullahi Ahmed was arrested with 550 grams of cannabis saliva which was found on him and he admitted ownership

and on the basis of which he was arrested on the 2nd day of April 2017 and brought to the office for further investigation.
(b) That while under investigation at the NDLEA office, he gave information about his supplier, the applicant who was later arrested on a later date and not on the 2nd of April 2017.
(C) That I know as a fact that the Applicant had since been charged to the Federal High Court, Abuja in Charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/6217/2017 together with the Abdullahi Ahmed and they were arraigned on the 23rd of May 2017 before the Federal High Court 5 and they were remanded in prison custody on that same day because they had no legal representation. The Charge is attached and marked as Exhibit NDLEA 1.
(d) That the detention of the Applicant for a long period was because of the follow-up operation carried to arrest him to enable the office to properly investigate the allegations and prosecute the case appropriately.
(e) That further to the depositions above, when the process and investigation was concluded, the applicant and his accomplice were charged to Court on a charge dated 10th day of April 2017 and filed on the 12th day of April

2017.
(f) That the application is a means to frustrate the criminal prosecution of the applicant.
(g) That the Applicant while in the Respondent’s custody was always attended to promptly and has never complained of any sickness or maltreated in anyway by the Respondent.
(5) That in the view of the facts above, this application should be dismissed so that the Applicant can face his criminal trial.

I want to add that this action is centered on the enforcement of the fundamental right action of the Appellant and same has nothing to do with whether the Appellant committed the offence for which he is charged with or otherwise. From the gamut of affidavit evidence placed before this Court, I am of the firm view that the Respondent at the point of arresting the Appellant had every reasonable justification to effect his arrest based on the information gathered from one Abdullahi Ahmed. The rules guiding arrest and detention are statutorily provided under Section 35 (4) (5) (6) and (7) the Constitution (supra). Section 35 (4) (5) (6) of the Constitution provides as follows:
35. Any person who is arrested or detained in accordance with

subsection (1) (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 or is not entitled to bail; or
(b) three months from the date of his arrest or detention in the case of a person who has been released on bail, he shall (without prejudice to nay further proceedings that may be brought against him) be released either unconditionally or such conditions as are reasonably necessary to ensure that he appears for trial at a later date.
(5) In subsection (4) of this section, the expression “a reasonable time” means –
(a) in the case of an arrest or detention in any place where there is a Court of competent jurisdiction within a radius of forty kilometres, a period of one day; and (b) in any other case, a period of two days or such longer period as in the circumstances may be considered by the Court to be reasonable.(Underlining mine for emphasis)
(6) Any person who Is unlawfully arrested or detained shall be entitled to compensation and public apology from the appropriate

authority or person; and in this subsection, “the appropriate authority or person” means an authority or person specified by law.

In the Appellant’s affidavit, it was stated in paragraph 7(xiv) – (xvi) “that since he was arrested on the 2nd day of April, 2017, he had been in the Respondent’s custody at Gudu, FCT-Abuja, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court; without the option of bail and without charging him to Court; That he was only charged to this Honourabie Court for criminal proceedings on 22nd day of May, 2017 in Charge No.: FCT/ABJ/CR/62/17, BETWEEN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA V ABDULLAHI AHMED AND ONE OTHER, before Honourable Justice A.I. Chikere No. 5 of this Honourable Court; That by his calculation, he has been in custody by the Respondent for fifty-one(51) days, inclusive of the day of arrest and the day he was first arraigned hi this Honourable Court in criminal proceedings…”

The Respondent in paragraph 4 (b) of the counter affidavit merely stated “That while under investigation at the NDLEA office, he gave information about his supplier, the applicant who was later arrested on a later date

and not on the 2nd of April 2017.”

I find it hard to believe the Respondent that the Appellant wasn’t arrested on the 2nd day of April 2017 because the mere saying that the Appellant was arrested on a later date without providing the details of the exact date of arrest makes the deposition of the Appellant that he was arrested on the 2nd day of April believable.

While the Appellant stated that he was charged to Court on the 22nd of May 2017 since his detention, the Respondent deposed to the fact that the Appellant was charged and arraigned in Court on the 23rd of May 2017. A simple arithmetic would reveal that the Appellant was detained for a period of 50 or 51 days as the case may be.
By virtue of Section 35 (4) of the Constitution (supra), the Respondent was required to bring the Appellant before a Court within a reasonable time. What amounts to reasonable time was defined under Section 35 (5) of the Constitution to mean that in the case of an arrest or detention in any place where there is a Court of competent jurisdiction within a radius of forty kilometres, a period of one day; and in any other case, a period of two days or such longer

period as in the circumstances may be considered by the Court to be reasonable.
The question is, assuming the arrest of the Appellant was lawful in the eye of this Court, can his detention for a period 50 or 51 days before being brought to Court be considered a reasonable period and thus lawful? My answer is in the negative. As a matter of fact, the Appellant is facing a charge of conspiracy and unlawfully dealing in 550 grams of cannabis sativa, a narcotic drug similar to cocaine, heroin and LSD. See Exhibit NDLEA 1 attached as exhibit to the Respondent’s counter affidavit at page 30 of the record of appeal). The Respondent made concerted efforts to give reasons for the Appellant’s detention in paragraphs 4(d) of the counter affidavit. According to the Respondent, the detention of the Appellant for a longer period was because of the follow-up operation carried to arrest him to enable the office to properly investigate the allegations and prosecute the case appropriately. The excuse in my opinion is untenable and since the offence for which the Appellant is charged is not a capital offence which could have rendered the applicability of

Section 35 (4) (5) and (6) of the Constitution impossible as provided under Section 35 (7) (a) of the Constitution (supra). If the Respondent had any justifiable reason for the continuous detention of the Appellant, recourse should have been made vide an application requesting the Court for an order to remand the Appellant in its custody and where the Court, after examining the reason for the arrest and for the request for remand in accordance with the provisions of Section 293 of the Act, is satisfied that there is probable cause to remand the suspect pending arraignment of the suspect before the appropriate Court, as the case may be, may remand the suspect in custody. This is the purport of Sections 293 and 294 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015.
As pointed out earlier by me in the course of the resolution of this appeal that this action is centered on the enforcement of the fundamental right action of the Appellant and same has nothing to do with whether the Appellant committed the offence for which he is charged with or otherwise. As at the point of the Appellant’s arrest and detention, he enjoys the presumption of innocence as provided

for under Section 36 (5) of the Constitution (supra), so therefore I do not agree with the Respondent when it stated at paragraph 4(f) of the counter affidavit that the Applicant’s application is a means to frustrate his criminal prosecution. The point is that whether the Appellant would eventually be found guilty of the offence charged or acquitted of same, the fact remains in this appeal that his detention was beyond that stipulated under Section 35 (4) and (5) of the Constitution (supra) without a Court order and is illegal and unlawful.
I shall refer to Articles 5 and 6 the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act Cap. A9, 1983 which came into effect on 17th March, 983. The articles are covered in mandatory terms as follows:
ARTICLE 5
Every Individual shall have the right to the respect of the dignity inherent in a human being and to the recognition of his legal status. All forms of exploitation and degradation of man, particularly slavery, slave trade, torture, duel, inhuman or degrading punishment and treatment shall be prohibited.
ARTICLE 6
Every individual shall have the right to

liberty and to the security of his person. No one may be deprived of his freedom except for reasons and conditions previously laid down by law. In particular, no one may be arbitrarily arrested or detained. (Underlining mine for emphasis)
The African Charter constitutes part of the domestic laws of Nigeria. SEE ABACHA VS. FAWEHINMI (2000) 4 S.C (PT 2) 1 AT 21. Part of the Charter provides as follows: “WHEREAS a Charter entitled the “African Charter on Human and Peoples, Rights has been duly adopted by diverse States in Africa and Nigeria is desirous of adhering to the said Charter. AND WHEREAS it is necessary and expedient to make legislative provision for the enforcement in Nigeria of the said Charter by way of an Act of the National Assembly: 1. Enforcement of provisions of African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. As from the commencement of this Act, the provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights which are set out in the Schedule to this Act shall, subject as thereunder provided, have force of law in Nigeria and shall be given full recognition and effect and be applied by all authorities and persons exercising

legislative, executive or judicial powers in Nigeria.”
The learned trial Judge was bound to take judicial notice of the charter alongside the Constitution and the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules in the determination of the controversy between the parties.
Although the effective discharge of the duties and responsibilities of the Respondent is for the betterment of the entire citizens of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, its neighbouring states and the global community, however, its officials should not be given the indiscriminate latitude to trample on existing sacrosanct and in alienable rights of human persons guaranteed under our relevant laws.

After holding that the detention of the Appellant beyond the time stipulated under Section 35 (4) & (5) of the Constitution (supra) was unlawful and unconstitutional, it follows therefore that the Appellant is entitled to compensation and public apology. This doesn’t have to do with whether the Appellant would eventually be acquitted or convicted of the offence charged. This Court sitting on an application for the enforcement of the Appellant’s fundamental right is only

concerned as to whether the application has merits thus entitling the Appellant to the reliefs sought. Section 36 (6) of the Constitution (supra) provides that “Any person who is unlawfully arrested or detained shall be entitled to compensation and public apology from the appropriate authority or person; and in this subsection, ‘the appropriate authority or person means any authority or person specified by law.”

The trial Court in its judgment failed to consider the part of the Appellant’s case of unlawful detention but concentrated on the part that alleged that he was beaten, brutalized and inhumanly tortured. The law is trite that a Court is bound to consider all the issues placed before it by parties. Flowing from the hills of the foregoing, I find merit in this appeal, same is hereby allowed. The two issues adopted for the resolution of this appeal are hereby resolved in favour of the Appellant. The decision of the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja delivered by Hon. Justice A.I. Chikere on the 27th day of April, 2018 in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/863/2018 is hereby set aside. In its place, it is hereby:

DECLARED that the detention of the Applicant by the Respondent from 2nd day of April, to 22nd day of May, 2017 till when he was arraigned on the 22nd day of May, 2017) which was fifty-one (51) days inclusive of the day of arrest, without bail without charging him to Court for trial as required by law, constitutes a violation of the applicant’s fundamental rights guaranteed under Section 35(1) (a-f) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and Article 6 of the African Charter on Human and People‘s Right as ratified by the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, 1990 and was therefore unconstitutional, unlawful, illegal, null and void.
2. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court compelling the Respondent to pay N500,000.00 to the Applicant, the sum of being general and exemplary damages against it for breach of the applicant’s fundamental fights to personal liberty.

The sum of N30,000.00 (Thirty Thousand Naira Only) is hereby awarded as cost in favour of the Appellant and against the Respondent.

ABDU ABOKI, J.C.A.: My leamed brother, ADAMU JAURO, JCA obliged me with a copy of the judgment just

delivered. His Lordship has exhaustively considered and ably resolved the issues in contention in this appeal. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion that this appeal is meritorious, and ought to be allowed.

I will just add in reiteration that rules guiding arrest and detention are statutorily provided under Section 35 (4), (5), (6), and (7) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
In LANDMARK UNIVERSITY V. ANWULI & ANOR (2014) LPELR 24340 (CA), this Court held as follows:
“By Section 35(4) and (5) of the Constitution, the Respondents who were arrested and detained for suspicion of having committed a crime ought to have been brought before a Court of competent jurisdiction within a reasonable time. In determining what time reasonable for the arraignment of a person arrested and detained having been suspected to have committed a crime, the Court will consider a number of variables. Where the arrest and detention took place, was there is a Court of competent jurisdiction within a forty kilometers radius, then a period of one day is adjudged reasonable time. Where a Court of law is not within that radius, then two days becomes the reasonable

time. In other cases the Court has to determine what time is reasonable to bring the detained suspect to Court owing to the facts and circumstances.

In the instant appeal, I also find that the Appellant, being detained for a period of 50 or 51 days, is unreasonable, unlawful and a breach of his human rights, and he is thus entitled to compensation and a public apology.

For this, and the more eloquently articulated lead Judgment of my Learned Brother ADAMU JAURO JCA, I also adjudge this appeal to meritorious. It is allowed by me.
I also abide by the orders made in the lead judgment.

EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.C.A.: I had a preview of the judgment just delivered by my Learned brother, Lord Justice Adamu Jauro, JCA. I agree with the reasoning, conclusions and orders therein.

Appearances:

HAMEED AJIBOLA JIMOH ESQ., with him, HANNA U. UMARU ESQ. – for Appellant For Appellant(s)

Respondent – Absent & Not Represented For Respondent(s)