Does an Invitation by the Police for the Purpose of Investigating an Allegation Amount to a Breach of Fundamental Right?

CASE TITLE: DIDEN v. C.O.P STATE COMMAND, ASABA & ORS (2024) LPELR-61926(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 25TH MARCH, 2024
PRACTICE AREA: ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
LEAD JUDGMENT: MISITURA OMODERE BOLAJI-YUSUFF, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on the Enforcement of Fundamental Rights.

FACTS:
This appeal is against the decision of the High Court of Delta State, delivered on 7/14/22.

The complaint of the 4th respondent is that on 8/17/21, he was invited to the 2nd respondent’s office through a phone call on the ground that the appellant, who was the 4th respondent at the trial Court wrote a petition against him alleging that he was prevented from using his land and beaten to a coma, which allegation is false. Prior to the invitation, he had been in the 2nd respondent’s office, where he was arrested and detained for several hours and later released on bail over the same issue. He alleged that he had been arrested and detained several times in the 2nd respondent’s office and at A Division of the Nigeria Police Force on the strength of petitions written by some other individuals over the same Omadino Community land. He further alleged that the act of constant harassment, invitation with a view to arrest and detain him was hatched by the 1st -3rd respondents to take over Omadino Community land that he is protecting from trespassers such as the appellant and the objective of the appellant is to use the police as an instrument to make him surrender Omadino land.

According to the 1st -3rd respondents, the appellant reported a criminal case of assault occasioning harm, malicious damage, and forcible entry against the 4th respondent at the 2nd respondent’s office in writing. The allegation was investigated, and the police found merit in it. Hence, the 4th respondent was invited by the police through phone calls to come and state his own side of the story. The investigation revealed that 4th respondent and his thugs maliciously damaged the economic crops planted on the land and beat up the appellant as a result of which he sustained injuries. The appellant was made to do a frog jump while the 4th respondent was beating him all over his body, and this is evidenced by the injuries all over the appellant’s body. The police visited the scene of the crime and saw the damaged crops. They denied ever arresting, detaining, and releasing the 4th respondent on bail, as the 4th respondent did not respond to the invitation by the police. In his reply to the 1st -3rd respondents’ counter affidavit, the 4th respondent denied all the allegations.

After hearing both parties, the trial Court entered judgment in favour of the 4th respondent. The appellant was dissatisfied with the judgment, hence this appeal.

ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court adopted the lone issue formulated by the Appellant in the determination of the appeal, which states:

“Whether the invitation of the 4th respondent by the 1st to 3rd respondents answer the allegation of crime without more would amount to a breach of 4th respondent’s fundamental rights?”

DECISION/HELD:
In the final analysis, the appeal was resolved in favour of the appellant. The appeal was allowed and the judgment of the trial Court was set aside.

RATIOS:

• EVIDENCE- BURDEN OF PROOF/ONUS OF PROOF: On whom lies the burden of proof in a fundamental right enforcement proceeding; when will the same shift?
• EVIDENCE- CALLING OF WITNESS(ES): Effect of failure to call a vital witness
• POLICE- POWERS OF THE POLICE: Powers of the police with respect to investigation of Criminal Allegations
• POLICE- POLICE INVESTIGATION: Whether the Court has the power to stop the Police from investigating an allegation of crime
• POLICE- POLICE INVESTIGATION: Whether an invitation by the police for the purposes of investigating an allegation would amount to a breach of the fundamental right of the citizen
• POLICE- POLICE INVESTIGATION: Whether a complainant/informant can be held responsible for the result of a police investigation

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol