CASE TITLE: PAUL ITEH v. ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION (EFCC) (2022) LPELR-57438(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 12TH APRIL, 2022
JUSTICES: HAMMA AKAWU BARKA, JCA
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, JCA
BATURE ISAH GAFAI, JCA
COURT DIVISION: ABUJA
PRACTICE AREA: Constitutional Law- Enforcement of Fundamental Human Right(s)
FACTS:
The Appellant, who was the Applicant in the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, was a senior staff in the office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation. His case was that he received an alert indicating that certain sums of money were paid into an account he operated with Access Bank Plc. That he was subsequently invited by the bank, was arrested by officials of the Respondents, ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION (EFCC) and remained under arrest for a period of 10 days before he was admitted to administrative bail.
The Appellant alleged that notwithstanding this, the Respondent wrote a letter to the Appellant’s employers based upon which he was suspended from official duty indefinitely. Up until when a charge was filed against him, the Respondent did not report back so as to enable his employers to rescind his suspension.
As a result, the Appellant instituted an action for the enforcement of fundamental human rights against the Respondents in the trial High Court.
In a considered ruling, the Court struck out the Appellant’s application, on the ground that the trial Court could not continue to exercise jurisdiction over the matter as charges had been brought against the Appellant at the Federal High Court.
Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
1. Whether the High Court of Abuja is divested of its jurisdiction to hear the application for the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights of the Appellant as a result of the commencement of the criminal trial at the Federal High Court?
2. Whether the learned trial Court was right when having found that “It took the respondent three years plus four months to finish the investigation and to charge the applicant to Court is, to say the least, arbitrary and unfortunate” ought not to resolve the issue in favour of the Appellant?
3. Whether on the strength of the affidavit evidence and the admission by the Appellant the learned trial judge ought not to have granted the reliefs sought instead of striking out the case?
COUNSEL SUBMISSIONS
Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that the High Court of the FCT and the Federal High Court are imbued with the necessary jurisdiction to try cases of breach of Fundamental Rights. That the trial Court had no basis refusing the hearing of the application for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights of the Applicant on the ground that charges had now been filed before the Federal High Court, as there is no law in support of such decision.
Counsel maintained that the law does not forbid the hearing of a criminal case during the pendency of an action challenging the breach of the Fundamental Rights of the same defendant. He urged the Court to hold that the extant rules for the enforcement of Fundamental Right breaches, do not include any consolidation of a criminal complaint, hence the directive of the trial Court was unfounded in law.
In response, Learned Counsel for the Respondent conceded to the fact that the commencement of criminal proceedings against the Appellant before the Federal High Court or any Court at all does not void or nullify or abate an application for the enforcement of the Fundamental Right of the Appellant. He however went on to argue that the mere fact that the Judge struck out the application does not translate to the fact that the Appellant had established the breach since it is the law that the Applicant must succeed on the strength of the case made by him and not on the weakness of the defense case.
He then urged the Appellate Court to evaluate the evidence adduced with a view to determining the real question in controversy.
DECISION/HELD
In the final analysis, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
RATIO
- CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT(S):
Whether an applicant who has been charged with a criminal offence must file his application for enforcement of fundamental rights at the same Court he was charged
“The question arising is where do the combatants go to, for the resolution of the dispute. The case of Adumu vs. The Comptroller of Prisons, Federal Prisons, Aba & Ors (2013) LPELR – 22069 (CA) in interpreting Order 1 Rule 2 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Rules) 2009, per Augie JCA as he then was, held that:
“The provisions of Order 1 Rule 2 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules defined Court to mean the Federal High Court or the High Court of a State. What this means is that both the Federal High Court and the High Court of a State have concurrent jurisdiction in the matter of the Enforcement of Fundamental right.”
This being so, the learned counsel for the appellant would be correct, in his submission that no law supports the decision of the lower court directing that appellant go to the Federal High Court wherein he was being charged with a criminal allegation to ventilate his application founded on the infringement of his fundamental rights. This Court in the case of Adekunle vs. AG Ogun State (2014) LPELR – 22569 (CA) per Tsammani JCA, elaborated on the position thus:-
“This matter was initiated under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) rules 1979. It is not in doubt that the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules have been made as a special procedure for speedy enforcement of the fundamental rights of the citizens. In other words, an action under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules is a peculiar action. It is a kind of action which may be considered as sui generis i.e. it is a case in a class of its own though with a closer affinity to a civil action than a criminal action the remedy available by this procedure is to enforce the constitutional rights available to citizens which have been contravened by another or others.
Indeed, in most cases, the acts or facts giving rise to the contravention of such fundamental rights may have some criminal connotation, but will not raise the allegations of breach of fundamental rights to the level or pedestal of a criminal allegation. I am therefore of the view that to raise the standard of proof in an action for the enforcement of fundamental rights to that required in criminal allegation merely because the facts giving rise to the breach or contravention have a semblance of criminal acts, will defeat the purpose of Section 46(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which seeks a simple easy to attain and thus effective judicial process for the enforcement of fundamental rights available to citizens under Chapter 4 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria…”
I am therefore swayed by the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the law does not preclude nor forbid the hearing of a criminal case filed against an individual during the pendency of any action brought by the said accused person challenging the breach of his fundamental rights, as both can be heard at the same time either before the same High Court or a different High Court at the same time. See Adekunle vs. AG Ogun State (supra). I, therefore, agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the lower Court was indeed wrong to have declined the hearing of the appellant’s application.” Per BARKA, J.C.A.
