Justice Ayokunle Faji of a Federal High Court, sitting in Lagos, has dismissed a fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by a Chartered Accountant, Omafume Augustina Ayinuola, against the Inspector General of Police (IGP) and four others.
Justice Ayokunle Faji, who dismissed the suit for lack of merit, also ordered the accountant to pay N950, 000 to all the respondents in the suit.
The applicant, who was remanded at the Female section of Kirikiri Centre of the Nigerian Correctional Services (NCoS) for alleged N1 billion fraud, filed the suit marked FHC/L/CS/757/2023, against the IGP, Commissioner of Police (INTERPOL), Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), Emmanuel Agene, Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP), Raphael Ajulo, and a firm.
She had prayed the court for a declaration that the Gestapo-style raiding, her arrest and incarceration for seven consecutive days from March 23, to March 29, under cruel, inhuman and degrading condition by the second to fourth respondents at the behest of the fifth respondent, was a brazen violation of her rights to personal liberty, freedom of movement and dignity of her human person guaranteed by Sections 34(1)(a), 35(1), 35(5)(a), 4101) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and Articles 4, 5, 6, & 12 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act Cap A9 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and therefore unconstitutional, unlawful and ultra vires.
She also wanted a declaration that the arbitrary seizure of her International Passport and forceful confiscation of her Toyota Fortuner with Registration No: JJJ 371 XP and Lexus 350 with Registration No: JJJ 377 GE, belonging to her father, and other valuable properties by the second to fourth respondents, without lawful justification is a violation of the applicant’s right to ownership of properties enshrined in Sections 43 and 44(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and Article 14 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act Cap A9Y Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and therefore unconstitutional, illegal and.
She further prayed the court for an order of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents jointly and severally and all other officers and men of the first respondent howsoever described from further dabbling into a purely domestic, civil and private affairs between her and fifth respondent by inviting, arresting, detaining and/or compelling her to report at their station.
However, the first to fourth respondents through their counsel, Mr. Morufu Animashaun, a legal officer at the ForceCID, Annex Alagbon-Ikoyi, Lagos, in his preliminary objection and a counter-affidavit, urged the court to dismiss the suit with substantial cost.
He told the court that the first to fourth respondents received a petition written on behalf of the fifth respondent by the firm of Femi Falana (SAN) and Co, alleging that the applicant diverted funds meant for the fifth respondent to her account and her mother’s account and that when the applicant’s bank account statement was obtained, sums of N400 million and $800, 000.00, were found to have passed through applicant’s account from the accounts of the fifth respondent’s company.
The lawyer explained that granting a perpetual injunction against the first to fourth respondents when the applicant is still under investigation and may face possible criminal prosecution, would pose a serious danger to the criminal justice system, and irreparable damages to the fifth respondent whose interest and life are at risk of jeopardy
Specifically, Animashaun told the court that the applicant has been charged to court for the offences of conspiracy, unlawful diversion and fraud of over N1 billion, forgery and others. He prayed the court to dismiss the application.
Also, the fifth respondent in its counter-affidavit filed by Mr. E. I. Maduabuchi, stated that from the depositions in his client’s counter affidavit, there is a reasonable suspicion of the applicant having to warrant her arrest. Adding that his client did not violate the applicant’s fundamental right by petitioning the police. He therefore urged the court to hold that the applicant is not entitled to the reliefs sought.
In his judgment, Justice Faji said he has examined parties’ submissions, and all the processes filed, and decided the issues raised in favour of the respondents.
The judge subsequently dismissed the applicant’s suit.