“In deciding, however, if only for a brief moment to subject the provision of Section 35(1) of the Nigerian Constitution 1999 as amended, to a microscopic examination, since the Appellants seem here to have taken solace under the said provision, in buttressing their arguments in support of the illogicality of their claims, that there are no such things as an absolute guarantee of the liberty of the individual, so long as it can at anytime be curtailed under any of the circumstances permitted under the law, it is apposite, perhaps, to state here that the test of “reasonableness” as to what is of “reasonable belief”, is an objective one. It is usually not what the arresting authority considers reasonable, but whether the facts within their knowledge at the time of the arrest disclosed circumstances from which it could easily have been inferred that the person committed the offence alleged. See the case of Ekpu & Ors vs. A.G. (Federation) & Ors (1998) 1 HRLRA 391 at 419 – 420”. –

Section 35(6) of the Constitution (as amended) provides that any person who is unlawfully arrested or detained shall be entitled to compensation and public apology from the appropriate authority or person. See the cases of Skye Bank vs. Njoku & Ors (2016) LPELR – 40447 (CA); Arulogun vs. COP, Lagos State & Ors. (2016) LPELR -40190 (CA). The settled position of the law is that when once the arrest and detention of a person is adjudged to be wrongful and unlawful, he is entitled to the remedy stipulated by the Constitution. He needs not specifically ask for it. See Skye Bank Plc vs. Njoku & Ors (Supra); Nemi vs. A. G. Lagos State (1996) 6 NWLR (PT. 452) 42 AT 55 (D – E); Okoro vs. COP, Enugu State & Anor (2016) LPELR – 41025 (CA); and Att-Gen. Of Lagos State vs. Keita (2016) LPELR – 40163. Perhaps, to make matters worse for the Appellants, at paragraph 10 of their averment in their Amended Statement of Defence and paragraph 13 of their deposition on Oath, the Appellants admitted that they were responsible for the harassment, arrest, detention, remand of the Respondent at Oko prison, so that the regime of humiliation, physical and mental torture, agony anxiety, inconveniences and loss of income of the Respondent referred to at paragraphs 12, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 22 of the Plaintiffs written deposition on Oath, were caused by the reckless, corrupt and nefarious display of power by the Appellants. See pages 228 to 233 of the records. It is further settled in law that an unlawful arrest and detention, no matter how short entitles the applicant to compensation. See Arulogun vs. COP (Supra).-