IGP & ORS v. EBOH (2022)

IGP & ORS v. EBOH

(2022)LCN/16845(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Monday, February 07, 2022

CA/A/122/2021

Before Our Lordships:

Stephen Jonah Adah Justice of the Court of Appeal

Mohammed Mustapha Justice of the Court of Appeal

Kenneth Ikechukwu Amadi Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE & 3 ORS APPELANT(S)

And

MRS. TITILAYO EBOH RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO

WHETHER OR NOT THE APPELLATE COURT CAN INTERFERE WITH THE EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE DONE BY THE TRIAL COURT

It is trite law that the power of interference and re-evaluation of evidence is not one that an appellate Court can exercise simply because an Appellant has ask for a re-evaluation. It is a privilege and the privilege of having an appellate Court exercise the power must be earned by an Appellant showing a compelling and cogent reason for its exercise. In other words, an appellate Court will not interfere with the evaluation of evidence led by the parties simply because as Appellant made an allegation of improper evaluation of evidence and formulated it as one of the issues for determination.
An appellate Court will only do so where an Appellant visibly demonstrates the perversity of the findings made by the lower Court by showing that the lower Court;
1. Made improper use of the opportunity it had of seeing and hearing the witnesses
2. Did not appraise the evidence and ascribe probative value to it.
3. Draw wrong conclusions from proved or accepted facts leaving to a miscarriage of justice. Where an Appellant fails to do so an appellate Court has no business re-evaluating the evidence and interfering with the findings of the lower Court. See Bako & Another v Audu & Anor (2018) LPELR-44394CA. Njoku v Eme (1973) 5 SC 293 AT 306, Kale v Coker (1982) 12 SC 252 AT 371, Oke v Mimiko (No 2) 2014 1 NWLR (Pt 1388) 332 AT 397-298, Amadi v A.G. Imo State (2017) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1575) 92 AT 112 C-E. PER AMADI, J.C.A.

KENNETH IKECHUKWU AMADI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1404/2020, delivered on 16th day of November, 2020 by Hon. Justice A.R. Mohammed. Wherein the trial Court granted the reliefs sought by the Applicant (Respondent in this appeal) and awarded the sum of N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) as compensation to the Applicant for the violation of her right as enshrined under Chapter IV of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).

The brief facts of this case is that sometimes in 2018, the Respondent was invited by the EFCC and subsequently the Respondent was arraigned before the High Court of the FCT, Abuja in Charge No. CR/468/2019, and was admitted to bail by the Court.

The Respondent was later re-arrested on 21/12/2020 by the Nigerian Police and detained until the Court ordered his release by the judgment in this suit. She alleged that her arrest was on the basis of the same subject matter and same set of facts for which she was charged to Court in Charge No. CR/468/2019 and remain detained in the custody of the Appellants without bail. However, the Appellants averred that the Respondent was granted police administrative bail on the 23/12/2020 but she could not perfect the bail conditions and did not apply for the variation of same.

Consequent upon the above, the Respondent filed an originating motion pursuant to Order II Rules 1, 2 & 3 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009 at the Federal High Court, sitting in Abuja, wherein all the reliefs of the Respondent (Applicant) were granted save the variation to relief six. Where N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) was granted instead of the prayed N100,000,000.00 (One Hundred Million Naira).

Being dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellants (Respondents at the lower Court) filed two Notices of Appeal; one dated and filed 1st day of December, 2020 and the second Notice of Appeal was filed 11th February, 2021. During the hearing of this suit, the Appellants relied on the Notice of Appeal filed 11th February, 2021 with four (4) Grounds of Appeal as follows:
GROUND ONE
The lower Court misdirected itself when it held at page 16 of the judgment that:

The Respondents are however saying that the Applicant was arrested based on a criminal complaint bordering on fraud against one Oluwaseun Faleye as depicted by exhibit A.
GROUND TWO
The learned Judge of the trial Court erred in law when his Lordship held that at page 16 of judgment that:
I have carefully perused exhibit A pursuant to which the Respondents allegedly arrested the Applicant. The said exhibit is dated 20/12/12, a period of about 8 years before the alleged arrest and detention of the Applicant. I find the explanation of the respondents that the Applicant was arrested pursuant to exhibit a not tenable.
GROUND THREE
The trial Court erred in law when his Lordship at page 44-45 of the judgment held that:
However, as pointed out above, there is no basis for the arrest and subsequent detention of the Appellant from 21/10/20 to date without arraigned in Court for an offence known to our laws or being admitted to bail. The purported bail granted to the Applicant is a ruse.
GROUND FOUR
The trial Court misdirected itself when it held at page 18 of the judgment held that:
Accordingly, reliefs 2, 3, 4 and 5 are hereby granted.
On relief 6, I hereby award the sum of N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) as compensation to the Applicant for the violation of her right enumerated in relief 2 as enshrined under Chapter IV of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 199 (as amended).

The Appellants filed an Appellant’s Brief of Argument dated the 9th day of March 2021, and filed on 12th March, 2021, wherein the learned counsel for the Appellants, Akinolu Kehinde (SAN), raised a sole issue for determination before this Court on appeal to wit;
Whether the lower Court properly evaluated the affidavit and documentary evidence led by the parties before arriving at a finding that there was a breach of the Respondent’s fundamental fights.

The Respondent filed its Respondent’s Brief of Argument on 16th June, 2021, deemed properly filed and served tine same day and adopted the sole issue articulated by the Appellants. Upon being served the Respondent’s brief, the Appellants filed a reply brief on 24th June, 2021.

In respect of this sole issue, counsel submitted that the law is settled that whenever evidence is proffered before a Court or Tribunal, it is the duty of such Court or Tribunal to properly evaluate and weigh the evidence on both sides and to make up its mind as to which evidence to prefer. He referred to the case of Ezukwu v. Ukachukwu (2000) 1 NWLR (Pt. 642) 657 at 682 para. D, in support of his submission.

Counsel further submitted that evaluation of evidence is the assessment of evidence proffered by all parties, assigning probative value to the evidence and putting the evidence on an imaginary scale of justice in order to determine the party in whose favour the balance tilts. He cited the following cases in support of his submission- Odofin & Ors v. Mogaji & Ors. (1918) 4 SC 91 AT 93; Morah v. Okwuanyanoa (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 125) Pg 225 at 235 paras E-F. However, learned counsel submitted that the function of evaluation of evidence is essentially that of the trial Judge and where the trial Judge has unquestionably evaluated the evidence before him, it is not the business of this Court on appeal to disturb such findings of facts and substitute its own except where they are perverse and the evidence is documentary, the appellate Court can re-evaluate the evidence which was improperly evaluated by the trial Court. He referred to the following cases to support his argument: M v. Courageous Ace & Ors v. NigerDock (Nig) Plc (2016) LPELR-40223 Pg. 18, B-D; Yankey v. Austin (2021) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1757) 277 at 252. Paras E-F.

Counsel argued that the evidence proffered by the parties before the lower Court was all documentary. No oral evidence was adduced to prove or disprove the fact that the Respondent’s fundamental rights were breached by the Appellants, so the issue of credibility of witnesses does not arise. Counsel submitted, based on the above authorities that this Honourable Court has the jurisdiction to re-evaluate the evidence and make pronouncements on same if the findings of the lower Court are perverse. Counsel argued that a perverse finding is one that ignores the facts or evidence before the Court and, which considered as a whole, amounts to a miscarriage of justice. He relied on the following cases to back his submission- Odiba v. Azege (1998) 9 NWLR (Pt. 566) 370 at 380, Paras: D-E; Edoho v. State (2004) 5 NWLR (Pt. 865) 17 at 47, Paras: A-E.

Going further, counsel relied on the case of Statmak v. C.O.P (2020) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1728) 176 at 206, Para: D to state that in actions based on affidavit evidence, what the Court puts on imaginary scale is the affidavit of the opposing parties. Counsel submitted that the Respondent did not make out a case of unconstitutionality, unlawfulness or unreasonableness of her arrest, rather, it was the continuous detention that was the basis for the Respondent’s application for the enforcement of her fundamental rights. Counsel argued that looking at the prayers sought in the Respondent’s Originating Motion, it was manifest that the Respondent did not pray for a declaration that her arrest was unlawful or based on unreasonable suspicion rather, what was before the Court in the said application was whether the Respondent’s fundamental rights were breached by the continuous detention of the Respondent as it is trite that parties and the Court are bound by the prayers in the motion paper. He made reference to the case of Commissioner for Works, Benue State & Anor v. Devcon Development Consultants Ltd & Anor (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 83) 407 at 420; Government of Gongola State v. Alhaji Umaru Abba Tukur (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 117) 592 at 603, Para. D to buttress this point. Based on these authorities, counsel submitted that the lower Court was bound by the Respondent’s prayers that her continuous detention by the Appellants was a breach of her fundamental rights, and that it is the depositions of the parties in their respective affidavits, and the documents attached in support, as to the propriety of the continuous detention of the Respondent that ought to be evaluated, as all other facts are extraneous to the Respondent’s prayers.

Counsel submitted that the lower Court erred by straying outside the prayers in the Respondent’s Originating Motion and holding that, “there is no basis for the arrest… of the Applicant…” as seen in page 91 of the record of appeal, and that the lower Court’s finding on the proprietary of the Respondent’s arrest was a foray into issues that were not made out by the Respondents’ reliefs. He urged this Honourable Court to so hold. Counsel argued while submitting that the arrest of the Respondent was lawful, as it was within the discretionary powers of the Appellants to arrest the Respondent upon reasonable suspicion of crimes committed by the Respondent because the Appellants are vested with powers under Sections 4, 32, and 38 of the Police Act, 2010 to investigate, arrest and prosecute all crimes.

According to counsel, in the instant case, the Respondent was arrested based on the reasonable suspicion of crime created by the petition written by one Oluwaseun Faleye, the investigation carried out by the Appellants and the pending series of serious complaint/allegation of fraud against the Applicant. Counsel therefore submitted that there was a reasonable suspicion of crime(s) committed by the Respondent and the Appellants rightly exercised their discretionary powers to arrest the Respondent and this arrest could have happened with or without a petition so long as the Appellants had a reasonable suspicion that the Respondent had committed a crime. He referred to the case of Daniel v. EFCC (2016) LPELR-41173(CA), where this Honourable Court gave effect to Section 7(1) of the EFCC Act 2004, with regards to the powers of the Commission to cause investigations to be conducted as to whether any person, corporate body or organization has committed an offence under the Act or any other law relating to economic and financial crimes”.

As to whether the Respondent’s arrest amounted to double jeopardy, counsel submitted that the Respondent did not place any evidence before the lower Court to prove that the Appellants were aware that the Respondent had been charged to Court by the EFCC. Counsel contended that having failed to deny that the Appellants were unaware of Charge No.: CR/468/19 filed by the EFCC, same is deemed accepted by the Respondent and consequently established. Furthermore, counsel stated that the Respondent having not contended that the offence(s) for which the Respondent was being investigated are outside the Appellant’s investigative powers, it shows that the Appellants acted within the boundary of their powers by arresting the Respondent.

Counsel submitted that one of the reasons for the lower Court’s finding that the Respondent’s arrest was unlawful is because of the date on the face of the petition. Counsel referred to the cases of Bako & Anor v. Audu & Anor. (2018) LPELR-44394(CA) 33, paras. A-D; Yusuf v. N.T.C. (1977) 11 N.S.C.C. 349 at 354 to the effect that the lower Court was duty bound to holistically evaluate the totality of the Appellants’ evidence, including the petition written by the said Oluwaseun Falaye. Continuing, counsel argued that although the petition was dated “December 20th, 2012”, at the 2nd paragraph, the petitioner stated that:
“Mrs Eboh had sometimes in 2017 approached and represented to us that she and her company are able to source for and sell United States Dollars for us further to which funds sourced from different customers, friends and family were made available to her…”

Counsel submitted that a trial Court has the power and, indeed, the duty to draw the proper inferences(s) from the evidence before it and cited the case of Global Fleet v. Orok (2021) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1758) 451 at 480, Para: F in support of this point. That based on a holistic examination of the petition written to the Appellants, the proper inference the lower Court ought to have drawn from the evidence before it, was that the petition was written sometime after December, 2017.

On the issue of continued detention of the Respondent, counsel submitted that the continued detention after the Respondent’s arrest was constitutional and lawful, and that it is on record, and without contradiction, that the Respondent was granted bail by the Appellants after she had been interviewed and her statement was taken. Counsel further submitted further that by so doing, the Appellants had restored the Respondent’s liberty and set her free. Continuing, counsel stated that the period she spent in the custody of the Appellants after she had been granted bail and before she was able to provide a surety is a voluntary detention and cannot be regarded as an illegal detention. He referred to the case of Augustine Edo v. Commissioner of Police Bendel State (1982) 3 NCLR 219 at 228, Paras. 1-3 to buttress this point. Counsel further argued that the Respondent could not have been said to have been detained or further detained having secured her release from the Appellants’ custody via bail, and that if bail is granted to a person, such as the Respondent, by the Appellants after his/her interrogation and he/she fails to meet with the conditions of bail, the continued detention of such a person cannot be held to be a breach of the person’s fundamental rights. He cited the case of Eniong Edem Ekpo Ene & Ors v. Elder Bassey A. Bassey & Ors (2014) LPELR-23524(CA), in support.

Counsel argued that assuming the Respondent could not meet the bail conditions, there was nothing placed before the lower Court to show that the Respondent applied for the variation of the bail conditions and therefore, it was reasonable to infer that the Appellants were under the belief that the Respondent could meet the bail conditions or that time Respondent was satisfied with the bail conditions. Counsel posited that the lower Court did not give any reasons or provide any guide as to how it arrived at its finding that, “The purported bail granted to the Applicant is a ruse. The conditions for the grant of the said administrative bail are unreasonable.” Counsel submitted that this finding is not based on evidence that was before the lower Court and is therefore perverse. Counsel urged this Court to set aside this finding and overturn the judgment of the lower Court.

In conclusion, learned counsel urged this Court to find that the Appellants did not breach the Respondent’s right to personal liberty or dignity of person by arresting the Respondent based on a reasonable suspicion of crime and by granting the Respondent bail.

The Respondent filed a brief of argument dated 6th of April, 2021, and filed on 16th of June, 2021 wherein the Respondent submitted a sole issue for determination:
Whether the lower Court properly evaluated the affidavit and documentary evidence led by the parties before arriving at a finding that there was a breach of the Respondent’s fundamental rights. (Grounds 1, 2, 3, and 4).

In arguing the sole issue, Ahmed Raji, SAN, learned counsel to the Respondent dealt on issues pertaining to evaluation of evidence. In reply to the Appellants’ counsel submissions that the learned trial Judge did not properly evaluate the evidence before him thereby making the decision perverse and vesting this Honourable Court with the jurisdiction to re-evaluate same. Respondent’s counsel cited the case of Mogaji v. Odofin (1978) 4 SC 91 at 94-95. Where the Supreme Court held that a proper evaluation of evidence in a civil case must involve admissibility, relevancy, credibility of the evidence and whether or not it is conclusive and more probable than that given by the other party. He also referred to the case of Lagga v. Sarhuna (2008) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1114) 427 at 460 F-G, in furtherance of his submissions.

Counsel submitted that it is trite law that an Appellate Court will not interfere with the evaluation of evidence carried out by a lower Court simply because an Appellant made an allegation of improper evaluation of evidence and formulated it as one of the issues for determination. He further submitted that an Appellate Court will only do so where an Appellant visibly demonstrates the perversity of the findings made by the lower Court. Counsel referred to the following cases to buttress his points in support of his submission- Eleran v. Aderonpe (2008) 11 NWLR (1097) P. 50 at 69, Paras G-H; Adenekan v. The State of Lagos (2021) 1 NWLR (Pt. 17560) 130 at 180 Paras F-H; Oke v. Mimiko (No. 2) (2014) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1388) 332 at 397-398; etc.

Continuing, counsel cited the case of Olatunji v. Waheed (2012) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1298) 24 at 52 Para. G. to the effect that an Appellant who complains of improper evaluation or not evaluated and show convincingly that if the error had been corrected, the judgment appealed against cannot stand. He further stated that the Appellants in this case have not shown this Court that there has been an improper evaluation of evidence and such has led to a perverse finding or miscarriage of justice.

Going further, counsel submitted that the Court never questioned the Appellants’ powers to investigate and arrest the Respondent within the constitutionally prescribed period and arguments in this regard go to no issue. He urged the Court to discountenance same. Counsel further stated that there was no reasonable justification given by the Appellants for the continued detention from that arrest, especially where no charge was proffered. He argued that the Appellants are attempting to justify their manifest breach of the Respondent’s fundamental rights and the constitution by claiming that the said Exhibit A without a charge justifies the detention of the Respondent for more than the constitutionally prescribed period. Counsel as a result submitted that this reasoning as postulated by the Appellants is erroneous and should be rejected. Counsel contended that the Appellants have failed in their burden of proving the legality of the arrest and detention outside the constitutionally prescribed period and having failed to do so at the lower Court, cannot seek to remedy same on appeal. Counsel urged this Court to so hold.

On the aspect of the Appellant’s argument in their brief of argument that bail was granted to the Respondent and her failure to comply with the said terms, was her own doing and as such they were not in violation of the Respondent’s constitutional rights, counsel argued that Exhibit B Notice of Police Administrative Bail Conditions was unknown to Nigeria’s jurisprudence as the bail conditions contained therein were difficult to reach. Considering Exhibit B and C (Warrant of Remand) and having recourse to this Court’s decision in Col. Mohammed Sambo Dasuki (Rtd.) v. The Director General, State Security Services & 2 Ors (2020) 10 NWLR Part 1731, as delivered by Per Adah, J.C.A. to the effect that the issue of involving civil servants or public officers in the Public Service of the Federation and the State in bail of people accused of criminal offences has never been the practice in Nigeria or any part of the civilized world, counsel submitted that the Appellants failed in their brief to address the above decision of this Court but instead hinged bail conditions in their powers of discretion. Counsel urged the Court to hold that the bail conditions given to the Respondent in this matter which was considered unreasonable in the above case, be held to be unreasonable.

In conclusion, counsel urged this Court to reject all the submissions made by the Appellants under this issue and in consequence, prayed this Court to affirm the decision of the Court while the sole issue be resolved in favour of the Respondent. He urged this Honourable Court to dismiss the appeal.

The Appellant filed a Reply Brief dated 22nd day of June, 2021 and filed on the 24th of June, 2021. Counsel argued that the issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. In any manner, anyhow, including orally, and that a Court’s jurisdiction is confined to the reliefs sought. He referred to the cases ofHaruna & Anor v. Abubakar & Ors (2015) LPELR-40363(CA) Pg. 22, Paras. F-H; and Nalsa team Associates v. NNPC (1991) 8 NWLR (Pt. 212) 652 at 679, Paras. C-D, Petrojessica Enterprises Ltd v. Leventis Technical Co. Ltd (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 224) 675 at 693; Gaji v. Paye (2003) FWLR (Pt. 163) 1 at 13; etc. to buttress his point.

Learned counsel contends that since the Appellants’ argument that the failure of the lower Court to confine itself to the reliefs sought affects the jurisdiction of the lower Court. Counsel urged this Honourable Court to discountenance the Respondent’s arguments and allow this appeal.

COURTS DECISION:
This appeal simply is on whether the lower Court properly evaluated the evidence before it. The Appellant answered it in negative and urged the Court to re-evaluate the evidence and upheld the appeal.

Counsel for the Respondent has argued that this appeal is incompetent on the ground that the Appellant did not show or fulfil the requirement of the law before evidence can be re-evaluated by this Court sitting on appeal.

It is trite law that the power of interference and re-evaluation of evidence is not one that an appellate Court can exercise simply because an Appellant has ask for a re-evaluation. It is a privilege and the privilege of having an appellate Court exercise the power must be earned by an Appellant showing a compelling and cogent reason for its exercise. In other words, an appellate Court will not interfere with the evaluation of evidence led by the parties simply because as Appellant made an allegation of improper evaluation of evidence and formulated it as one of the issues for determination.
An appellate Court will only do so where an Appellant visibly demonstrates the perversity of the findings made by the lower Court by showing that the lower Court;
1. Made improper use of the opportunity it had of seeing and hearing the witnesses
2. Did not appraise the evidence and ascribe probative value to it.
3. Draw wrong conclusions from proved or accepted facts leaving to a miscarriage of justice. Where an Appellant fails to do so an appellate Court has no business re-evaluating the evidence and interfering with the findings of the lower Court. See Bako & Another v Audu & Anor (2018) LPELR-44394CA. Njoku v Eme (1973) 5 SC 293 AT 306, Kale v Coker (1982) 12 SC 252 AT 371, Oke v Mimiko (No 2) 2014 1 NWLR (Pt 1388) 332 AT 397-298, Amadi v A.G. Imo State (2017) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1575) 92 AT 112 C-E.
By Section 168 Evidence Act 2011, a judgment of a Court of law enjoys the presumption of regularity, therefore a party who applies for re-evaluation must show how perverse the decision or judgment is.

In this case, the primary complaint of the Appellant is that the Respondent at the lower Court challenged her continuous detention but the lower Court went outside the prayer to discuss the arrest of the Respondent and in fact held that there is ‘no basis for the arrest … of the Applicant’. To counsel, the lower Court went outside to issues raised by the Respondent’s reliefs.

In my mind, the issue here is purely that of semantics, the use of the word “arrest” did not change or alter the character of the suit. The Court granted all the reliefs as sought by the Respondent except the relief that sought for N100,000,000 in damages wherein the Court granted N500,000. Since there is no order outside the reliefs sought by the Respondent at the lower Court, the Appellant has failed to show how perverse the decision or judgment of the lower Court is and this appeal is liable to dismissed for lacking in merit.

However, assuming I am wrong in my above, I shall now look at the specific complaints of the Appellant. The first is the interpretation of exhibit A. The Respondent alleged that she was detained based on the same facts and circumstances of the subject matter leading to her being charged to Court in Charge Number C.R/468/19 proffered by the EFCC.

The Appellants opposed the foregoing and deposed to the fact that she was detained based on a petition written by one Oluwaseun Faleye as in that exhibit A. The trial Court looked at the document. It has a date of 20/12/12 as the date when it was written. The offence was alleged to have been committed sometime in December 2017 and the arrest of the Respondent took place in 2020. It is trite that a documentary evidence is the best evidence and cannot be wished away or supplanted by oral evidence because it speaks for itself. See Ogbe v Asade (2010) ALL FWLR (Pt.501) 612; Essien v Etukudo (2009) ALL FWLR (Pt.496) 1886. The trial Court properly evaluated it as did ascribe probative value to it by rejecting it as the reason or basis for the arrest of the Respondent and believing she averred to that effect.

The next issue is the argument that the Respondent was granted administrative bail and her failure to fulfil the bail conditions cannot be interpreted as unlawful detention or breach of her fundamental human rights. The question to ask here is “What are the conditions of the bail granted?” I must have to state here that bail conditions which are designed to frustrate and/or make it very difficult and sometimes impossible to fulfil approximate to no bail and denial of fundamental human rights of the detainee. The conditions as set out at page 58 of the Record of Appeal are as follows:
You are to provide:
a. A Permanent Secretary or a Director under the Federal establishment who must reside within this jurisdiction.
b. The surety must have a landed property in Abuja and must be willing to deposit his/her original C of O with the police until the suspect is formally arraigned in Court.
c. A surety who must have a used valid international passport and must have either a USA or any other European Country Visa and willing to deposit the said passport with the police until the suspect/suspects are formally arraigned in Court.
1. The surety/sureties are to report to the sectional head at the Detective Barau with two coloured passport photographs.
2. The suspect/suspects must fulfil all the conditions mentioned above.

The above conditions no doubt are high and very clearly unreasonable as the Court rightly held. This Court in Dasuki v. The D.G, SSS & Ors (2019) LPELR-49182(CA) clearly outlawed requiring top civil servants to be sureties in criminal cases. Again what use and how common can a detainee procure a person with USA visa and his passport or any other European Country visa to deposit his said passport with the police.

The lower Court throughout the judgment recognized the right of the police to arrest and investigate criminal cases.
I have held earlier that the Appellant failed to show the pervasiveness of the judgment. From the foregoing, it is obvious that this appeal is lacking in merit. It has failed. The judgment of the lower Court delivered in this matter on the 16th November 2020 is hereby affirmed. Parties to bear their costs.
Judgment is entered accordingly.

STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.C.A.: I have had the benefit of reading in draft, the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Kenneth Ikechukwu Amadi, (Ph.D), JCA.

I equally agree with the reasoning and the conclusion that the appeal lacks merit. I accordingly dismiss the appeal and I abide by the consequential orders as made in the lead judgment.

MOHAMMED MUSTAPHA, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading in advance the judgment of my learned brother, KENNETH IKECHUKWU AMADI, Ph.D, JCA just delivered. I agree with his conclusions that the appeal lacks merit. It has failed.
Parties to bear their costs.