ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION v. WOBODO KERIAN IIGBOERUCHE & ORS
(2019)LCN/13848(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Monday, the 4th day of February, 2019
CA/PH/594/2011
RATIO
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: IMPORTANCE
Because of the clear recognition by these provisions of rights attached to each person, Fundamental Rights applications earned a special place in our legal system, see the decision of the Supreme Court in CHIEF MRS OLUFUNMILAYO RANSOME KUTI & ORS V ATT. GEN OF THE FED (1985) 2 NWLR part 6 page 211, where the rights were held to stand above the ordinary laws of the land
While construing similar provisions under the 1979 Constitution in GRACE JACK V UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE MAKURDI (2004) 5 NWLR part 865 page 208 the Supreme Court held to the effect that where both the State High Court and the Federal High Court exist in a State, they have concurrent jurisdiction; see also NIGERIAN NAVY V GARRICK supra. PER MOHAMMED MUSTAPHA, J.C.A.
JURISDICTION: CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL AND STATE HIGH COURT TO HANDLE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ISSUES
Contrary to the contention of Learned Counsel to the Appellant the position of the law, as it can be seen is clearly that the jurisdiction of the Federal High Courts and the State High Courts to hear and determine actions for the enforcement of the Fundamental Human Rights of persons is concurrently vested in both Courts, and this is so regardless of whether any of the parties is a Federal Government agency; see FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY MINNA V OLUTAYO (2017) supra.
This position of the law is founded on the belief that Fundamental Rights of a person, as the name suggest, are fundamental, and therefore a serious matter, for reasons of which they ought not to be fettered.
It needs to be noted that the position of the law in FED UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY MINNA V OLUTAYO supra does indeed represent the current position of the law as things stand, and it is in perfect harmony with Section 251 of the Constitution relied on by Learned Counsel to the Appellant; see NNABUCHI V IGP (2007) ALL FWLR part 368 page 1158 WEMA SECURITIES & FINANCE PLC V NIG. AGRICULTURAL INSURANCE CORP. (2015) LPELR-24833-SC. PER MOHAMMED MUSTAPHA, J.C.A.
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: WHICH ISSUES CAN BE BROUGHT UNDER THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS PROVISIONS
The law is trite that only a breach of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution can be enforced under this procedure. When therefore an application is brought under these Rules, a condition precedent to the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction is that the enforcement thereof should be the main claim and not an ancillary claim; see EGBUONU V BRTC(1997) 12 NWLR (Pt. 531) 29; TUKUR V GOVERNMENT OF GONGOLA STATE (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 117) 517; and TUKUR V GOVERNMENT OF TARABA STATE (1997) 6 NWLR (Pt.510) 549. PER MOHAMMED MUSTAPHA, J.C.A.
FUNDAMENTAL RUGHTS: ANY APPLICATION BROUGHT UNDER THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS RULES MUST COMPLY WITH THE RULES IN ORDER TO GIVE THE COURT JURISDICTION
Any application brought under the Rules must comply with its provisions as a condition precedent for the Court’s jurisdiction to be invoked, in other words, non compliance with a condition precedent in the rules will not be treated as a mere irregularity but will rather affect the competence of any Suit brought thereon; See CHUKWUOGOR VS CHUKWUOGOR (2007) ALL FWLR (PT 349) 1154 and EZEADUKWA VS MADUKA (1997) 8 NWLR (PT 518) 635. PER MOHAMMED MUSTAPHA, J.C.A.
JURISDICTION: WHEN A COURT WILL HAVE JURISDICTION IN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS MATTERS
A trial Court will only have jurisdiction to proceed to enforce a Fundamental Right of an Applicant guaranteed under Chapter IV of the Constitution if the main relief discloses a breach of the Fundamental Right of the Applicant, see ALHAJI TSOHO DAN AMALE VS. SOKOTO LOCAL GOVERNMENT & ORS (2012) 5 NWLR (PART 1292) 181 AT 199. PER MOHAMMED MUSTAPHA, J.C.A.
WHEN A MATTER WILL NOT QUALIFY TO FALL UNDER THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS RULES
However, where the breach or alleged breach of the right is ancillary or incidental to the main grievance or complaint, it is incompetent to proceed under the rules, as enforcement of the right per se cannot resolve the substantive claim; see SEA TRUCKS NIGERIA LTD vs. PANYA ANIGBORO (2001) 2 NWLR (PART 696) 159 at 179. PER MOHAMMED MUSTAPHA, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
BITRUS GYARAZAMA SANGA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
MOHAMMED MUSTAPHA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
EFCC Appellant(s)
AND
1. WOBODO KERIAN IIGBOERUCHE
2. PRINCE TIMOTHY ENWUBUALIRI NSIRIM
3. CHIEF AZUBUIKE NMERUKINI Respondent(s)
MOHAMMED MUSTAPHA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the Judgment of the High Court of Rivers State sitting in Port Harcourt Judicial Division, delivered on the 25th of July, 2011 by Honorable Justice S.C. Amadi; where the Respondents claimed the following reliefs:
1. A declaration that the Respondent is not entitled to arrest and or detain the Applicants by any means whatsoever for the purpose of its unlawful inquiry into the financial affairs of the Ikwerre Local Government, Obio/Akpor Local Government Council and Port Harcourt, city Local Government Council respectively and the management of their funds.
2. A declaration that the attempt or threat to arrest the Applicants on the 2nd day of September, 2010 by the Respondent is unlawful, unconstitutional and an infringement of the Fundamental Rights of the Applicant to personal dignity.
3. An Order declaring that the continued threat by the Respondent and/or its agents to arrest, detain or to deprive the Applicants of their liberty or interfere with the dignity and freedom of movement of the Applicants is an infringement of the Applicants Fundamental Right as guaranteed by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
4. An Order declaring that the incessant and continuous invasion of the Ikwerre Local Government Council, Obio/Akpor Local Government Council and Port Harcourt, city Local Government Council Secretariats respectively by the Respondent and its operatives for the purpose of arresting and or detaining its principal officers, including the Applicants, is unlawful and constitutes an infringement of the Applicants? Fundamental Right as guaranteed by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
5. An Order compelling the Respondent within 14 days or such time as may be ordered by this Honorable Court, to pay to the Applicant the sum of N500,000.000.00 (Five Hundred Million Naira) or any such sum as may be deemed appropriate by this Honourable Court as monetary compensation or aggravated damages for the infringement or threat to infringe the Fundamental Rights of the Applicants.
6. An Order of injunction restraining the Respondents by themselves their servants and agents from compelling the Applicants to provide any information or material in respect of the unlawful inquiry or investigation into the financial affairs of the Ikwerre Local Government, Obio/Akpor Local Government Council and Port Harcourt, city Local Government Council respectively or the management of the funds of the Local Government Councils or in the process to compel the Applicants to appear before it or to arrest, detain or in any manner howsoever to infringe or interfere with the Fundamental Rights of the Applicants as guaranteed by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
The grounds on which the reliefs are sought are:
1. That the Respondent has no Constitutional right and or power to inquire into the financial affairs of the Rivers State or of the Ikwerre Local Government Area, Obio/Akpor Local Government Council and Port Harcourt, city Local Government Council respectively being an agency of the Federal Government and had been restrained from investigating or purporting to investigate or inquire into the management of the funds of Rivers State by the Federal High Court in Suit NO. FHC/PH/CS/78/2007, ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR RIVERS STATE VS ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION.
2. The power to inquire into the management and control over public and consolidated Revenue Funds of Rivers State and the Ikwerre Local Government Area, Obio/Akpor Local Government Council and Port Harcourt, city Local Government Council respectively is exclusively vested in the house of Assembly of the State and the respective Local Government Legislative Councils and not the Respondent as was determined by the High Court sitting in Port Harcourt in Suit No. PHC/114/2007, ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR RIVERS STATE VS THE SPEAKER RIVERS STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY & 36 ORS.
3. The continued invasion and attempt/threat to arrest the Applicants in the course of the unlawful inquiry of the Respondent into the financial affairs and managements of the funds of Ikwerre Local Government Council, Obio/Akpor Local Government Council and Port Harcourt, city Local Government Council respectively is unlawful, unconstitutional and constitute a threatened infringement of the Applicants? Fundamental Rights to liberty, freedom of movement and dignity.
4. The Applicants are Nigerians and entitled to the full rights guaranteed under the Fundamental Rights Provisions as contained in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
5. The Applicants? Rights as contained under the said Constitution have been threatened and the Applicants are entitled under S. 46 of the Constitution to have the said rights enforced.
6. The Applicants are entitled under the said Constitution to protection from infringement and remedy from the High Court for unlawful or unjustifiable infringement of their Fundamental Rights.
The trial Court granted all the reliefs sought by the Respondents, see page 209 to 248 of the Record of Appeal; dissatisfied with the said Judgment, the Appellants appealed to this Court by a Notice of Appeal filed on the 14th of October, 2011 but later amended with Leave of Court to include and additional ground as in the amended notice of the 15/5/2018 as follow:
GROUND ONE:
The Learned trial Judge erred in law when he assumed jurisdiction over the Suit when he had none going by the reliefs of the Respondents.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
I. That it is the relief of the Applicants that determines the jurisdiction of the Court.
II. The Lower Court lacks the requisite jurisdiction to entertain this matter.
III. Appellants is a Federal Government agency which the Federal High Court has exclusive jurisdiction.
IV. That Section 251 (1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal High Court on matters involving an agency of the Federal Government.
GROUND TWO:
The Learned trial Judge erred in Law when he held that by virtue of the subsisting Judgments of the Rivers State High Court in Suit No: PHC/114/2007: ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR RIVERS STATE VS THE SPEAKER, RIVERS STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY & 36 ORS and the Federal High Court Suit No FHC/PH/CS/78/2007, ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR RIVERS STATE VS ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIME COMMISSION & 3 ORS and the appeals against the Said Judgment lodged at the Court of appeal by the Appellant, the Appellants is not entitled to arrest and/or detain the Respondent by any means for the purpose of its inquiry into the financial affairs and management of funds of Ikwerre Local Government Council Obio/Akpor Local Government Council and Port Harcourt, city Local Government Council respectively.
PARTICULARS
I. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act of 2004 empowers the EFCC and to investigate and prosecute any person for economic and financial crime in Nigeria.
II. It has been settled in the cases of NYAME V FRN (2010) 7 NWLR (PT.1193) 344; A-G ONDO STATE V. A-G FEDERATION (2002) 9 NWLR (PT.772) 22; AHMED V FRN (2009) 13 NWLR (PT. 1159) 536; EZEBUNWO NYESOM WIKE V FRN (UNREPORTED) APPEAL NO; CA/A/85/C/2009 DELIVERED ON 17TH July, 2009, that the Appellant Constitutionally has the power or legal standing to, on behalf of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, investigate and prosecute any person for any economic and financial crimes including offences pertaining to criminal misappropriation of public funds belonging to whether Federal, State of Local Governments.
III. The trial Court is bound by the provisions of Section 287 (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the doctrine of stare decisis to gi
