Position of the Law on the Right to Personal Liberty

CASE TITLE: NAMODA v. C.O.P ZAMFARA STATE COMMAND, GUSAU & ORS (2023) LPELR-60271(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 14^TH APRIL, 2023

PRACTICE AREA: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

LEAD JUDGMENT: MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on right to personal liberty.

.

FACTS:

This appeal is against the decision of the High Court of Zamfara State delivered by Hon. Justice B. M. Kucheri on 14th December, 2021.

The appellant was arrested together with one Yusuf Bala Dogo in Ruwan Baure, Mada Village in Gusau Local Government Area by Mobile operatives of Zamfara State police command and taken to Tudun wada police station on the allegation of being involved in the offence of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery.

The appellant spent 13 days at the Tudun Wada police station before being transferred to the State Criminal Investigation Department (State CID) Gusau where he was also detained for 11 days. On 28th June, 2018, the appellant was eventually taken before the Chief Magistrate Court V, Gusau, after spending a total of 24 days in police custody.

At the Chief Magistrate Court, the appellant was remanded in prison custody because the Court lacks jurisdiction to try capital offences. The appellant remained in prison custody based on that remand order and no charge was filed against the appellant, let alone a trial of the alleged offence.

Consequently, the appellant filed an application for the enforcement of his right to personal liberty which was turned down by the High Court.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

ISSUES:

The Court of Appeal determined the appeal by adopting the lone issue formulated by the appellant which is:

“Whether or not the lower Court’s refusal to make any order for the release and/or enforcement of the appellant’s fundamental right to liberty was wrong and/or occasioned a miscarriage of justice to the appellant?”

DECISION/HELD:

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.

RATIOS:

• CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – BREACH OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: When detention would amount to a breach of the fundamental right
• CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – BREACH OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: When detention would amount to a breach of the fundamental right
• CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – RIGHT TO PERSONAL LIBERTY: Position of the law on the right to personal liberty of a suspect being held for a capital offence
• EVIDENCE – BURDEN OF PROOF/ONUS OF PROOF: On whom lies the burden of proof in a fundamental right enforcement proceeding; when same will shift

Go to primsol.lawpavilion.com to read the full judgment.