Extent of the Exercise of the Right to Freedom of Association

CASE TITLE: A.G OF THE FEDERATION & ORS v. ADEYEMO (2022) LPELR-58648(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 30TH AUGUST, 2022

PRACTICE AREA: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

LEAD JUDGMENT: MUSLIM SULE HASSAN, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

​ This appeal borders on a claim for the Enforcement of Fundamental Rights.

FACTS:

This is an appeal against the decision of the Oyo State High Court sitting at Ibadan delivered  in Suit No. M/435/2021, on the 17th day of September, 2021.

The case of the Respondent against the Appellants by his originating Motion for the enforcement of his fundamental right by his affidavit accompanying the statement is that on the 1st of July, 2021, the men of the 2nd and 3rd Appellants invaded and ransacked his home at Ibadan Expressway, Ibadan, killing two persons who were his guest and destroying his property all in the bid to capture him dead or alive. That after the attack on his person, his life was threatened and he is in danger of being killed as declared by the 2nd and 3rd Appellants. That the actions of the 2nd and 3rd Respondent led to his hiding and resorting to the Court of law through his solicitors. That after the ransacking of his home, his property was destroyed and his vehicle and mobile phones taken which the Appellant engaged in doing media trial for him by displaying same at Abuja to the media to see.

The case of the Respondent was that he has a right to self-determination and to protect the indigenous people of Yoruba land just like how it is obtained in other climes of the world. That his Accounts were frozen and his mobile phones seized and carted away by the men of the 2nd and 3rd Appellant. Thus it is only by an order of Court guaranteeing his fundamental rights and safety that the Appellants could be stopped from declaring for his life. The Respondent who was Applicant at the trial Court commenced this suit by way of Originating Motion under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure Rules) 2009, dated 22nd of July, 2021, and filed on the 23rd day of July, 2021, against the Appellants who was tagged as Respondents at the trial Court.

The Appellants on the other hand by their counter affidavit of the 2nd and 3rd Appellant stated that they went to the residence of the Respondent base on critical intelligence and on getting there they were engaged by the men of the Respondent in a gun battle. That the Respondent is a known person for inciting violence and he is suspected of pilling arms at the southwest and he is a gun runner. That the Respondent has a plan for the collapse of the present government, hence he must be stopped. The 1st Appellant equally argued a preliminary objection that the trial Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Respondent’s claims.

At the conclusion of trial, the trial Court awarded to the Respondent a whopping sum of N20,000,000,000.00 (Twenty Billion Naira) as damages against the Appellants.

Aggrieved, the Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The appeal was determined on the following issues viz:

1) Whether the learned trial Judge was right to have assumed jurisdiction to determine the Respondent’s suit under the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules when the major claims of the Respondent was not founded under Chapter IV of the Constitution.

2) Whether in view of Section 251 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), the learned trial Judge was right to have assumed jurisdiction to hear and determine the Applicant’s suit when the complaint was purely against the decision of a Federal Government agency.

3)Whether having regard to Order II Rule 3 of the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules, 2009, the Respondent’s originating process which was supported by two affidavits was not incompetent.

4)Whether the learned trial Judge was right to have held that the Respondent has the statutory and Constitutional right to propagate the establishment of the Yoruba or Oduduwa Nation in Nigeria contrary to Section 2 (1) and 1 (2) of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).

5)Whether the learned trial Judge rightly entered judgment for the Respondent in view of the serious allegations of commission of crime leveled against the Respondent.

6)Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he entered judgment in favor of the Respondent when there was no evidence on record in support of the Respondent’s claims.

DECISION/HELD:

On the whole, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.

RATIOS:

• CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – RIGHT TO PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY AND ASSOCIATION: Whether a party is permitted under the guise of freedom of association to lead a secessionist movement which may lead to the breakup of the Country
• INTERNATIONAL LAW – INTERNATIONAL TREATY: Whether an international treaty can be applied in Nigeria before it is ratified by the National Assembly
• INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE – RULES OF INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE: Whether a court of law should give a holistic interpretation to a statute as required by law
• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT (ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE) RULES: Whether claims based on tort can be enforced under the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules
• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT (ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE) RULES: Proper approach to determining whether a matter falls under fundamental rights enforcement procedure