Whether the Due Exercise of Police Powers of Arrest and Detention, Violates Rights to Personal Liberty and Freedom of Movement

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on the Enforcement of Fundamental Human Rights.

CASE TITLE: AKINRUTAN v. MAFIMISEBI & ORS (2023) LPELR-60516(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 15TH JUNE, 2023

PRACTICE AREA: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

LEAD JUDGMENT: YUSUF ALHAJI BASHIR, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

FACTS:

This appeal is against the decision of the Ondo State High Court of Justice.

This case was initiated by the 1st – 7th Respondents against the Appellant and the 8th and 9th Respondents for the enforcement of their fundamental human rights to personal liberty, dignity of their human person. Freedom of movement and other sundry reliefs contained in their amended originating process dated 15th May 2018.

The Learned Trial Judge in his judgment delivered on 18th day of July 2018 granted all reliefs sought by the 1st – 7th Respondents against the Appellant and the 8th – 9th Respondents who were the Defendants at the trial Court, in the following terms:

​(a) A DECLARATION that the act of forcible entry into the dwelling houses of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Applicants by the agents of the 3rd Respondent supervised by the agents of the 1st and 2nd Respondents by breaking into their houses between the hours of 3:am-5:am on the 6th of April, 2018 at Ode-Ugbo in Ilaje Local Government Area of Ondo State and picking them up amidst heavy gun power and disallowing them from wearing their clothes and marching them naked to the house of the 3rd Respondent and beating them up using logs of woods on them before transporting them with the vehicle provided by the 3rd Respondent and preventing communication with the 2nd – 4th Applicants is barbaric, capricious, unconstitutional, unlawful, oppressive, illegal and violative of the constitutional rights of the Applicants to freedom of movement, right to personal liberty, right to dignity of the human person, right to private life, right to own movable and immovable property as a Nigerian Citizen contrary to Sections 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 43 and 44 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

(b) A DECLARATION that the 1st Applicant is entitled to move freely within the Federal Republic of Nigeria including Ode-Ugbo which is his place of birth being a citizen of Nigeria.

(c) AN ORDER that the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Applicants be released from custody of 1st – 2nd Respondents or any custody at all, immediately and unconditionally.

(d) AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd Respondents from further arresting the 1^st – 7th Applicants.

(e) Damages against all the Respondents jointly and severally in the sum of Ten Million Naira (N10, 000,000.00).

(f) An Order of public apology by the Respondents to the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Applicants for unlawful arrest, unlawful detention and unlawful violation of their rights to personal liberty and dignity of their human persons to be published in at least two National Dailies.

Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

ISSUES:

The appeal was determined on the following issues:

1) Whether the Learned Trial Judge was right in rejecting the submission of the Appellant that the 1st Respondent’s fundamental right of movement guaranteed under Section 41 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, as amended, does not extend to going or entering the parcel of land referred to as the Akodi Olugbo in the Appellant’s counter-affidavit which land is vested in the Appellant by reason of the Appellant’s status as the Olugbo of Ugbo.

2)Whether the Learned Trial Judge properly evaluated the conflicting evidence before the lower Court before reaching the conclusion that the Appellant employed or used the 8th and 9th Respondents to effect their arrest and detention of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents.

3) Whether the Learned Trial Judge was right to have held that the Appellant was liable for the arrest and detention of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Respondents having regard to the quality of the evidence placed before the lower Court by the Respondents and the evidence contained in the counter-affidavit filed by the Appellant.

DECISION/HELD:

On the whole, the appeal was allowed.

RATIOS:

• CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT(S) – Right of any person who alleges that any of the fundamental rights is being or likely to be infringed to approach the Court to prosecute his complaint and obtain redress
• POLICE – POWERS OF THE POLICE – Powers of the police as regards arrest and detention of persons and whether same violates rights to personal liberty and freedom of movement
• POLICE – POWERS OF THE POLICE – Position of the law as regards statutory powers of the police
• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – ACADEMIC OR HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION(S)/ISSUES/SUIT/EXERCISE – When is an appeal or a suit academic