NIGERIA POLICE FORCE & ORS v. KABIRU AHMADU

CORAM

PARTIES

NIGERIA POLICE FORCE

KABIRU AHMADU

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Respondent was arrested by the officers and men of the 1st and 2nd Appellants led by the 3rd Appellant who raided Zaranda Street, Yola in Mufti. The Respondent was arrested because he requested the 3rd Appellant and his colleagues to identify themselves. He was locked up in the Police cell and was severely tortured throughout the night until he slipped into coma. Subsequently the Respondent was admitted at the Federal Medical Centre Yola, for 56 days; and he continued receiving treatment as an outpatient after he was discharged from the hospital. The Respondent filed an action at the FHC Yola Judicial Division, seeking to enforce his Fundamental Human Right. The trial court gave judgment in favour of the Respondent against the Appellants. Dissatisfied with the trial court’s decision, the Appellants have filed this appeal contending that the Respondent’s right under Section 35 of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 can be curtailed where he is reasonably suspected to have committed an offence.

HELD

Appeal Dismissed

ISSUES

Whether the ruling of the lower Court granting the reliefs of the Respondent for the enforcement of his Fundamental Human Rights was wrong having regards to the totality of the affidavit evidence placed before the lower Court.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS – WHETHER THE MERE ALLEGATION OF CRIME AGAINST A SUSPECT JUSTIFIES THE INCARCERATION AND TORTURE OF THE SUSPECT

“The logical conclusion to be reached is that the Respondent was assaulted to a coma state by the Appellants and this is torture. The evidence of the Appellants provide no answer to how and why the Respondent slipped into a coma in one night in their police cell with bleeding ears and broken ribs and neck. In Duruaku v. Nwoke (2016) All FWLR (Pt. 815) 351 at 395, Paras. E- F, it was held thus:
The mere allegation of crime or wrongdoing against a suspect irrespective of its seriousness cannot operate to curtail the fundamental rights of the suspect nor can it operate to justify the incarceration and torture of the suspect. The person who infringes or breaches the constitutional rights of the applicant has the onus to justify such breaches. An arrest pending investigation is unconstitutional. In the instant case where the 4th and 5th respondents failed to investigate the offences the appellants allegedly committed before detaining them, the trial Court erred by not granting them damages sought for infringement of their constitutional rights.

EVIDENCE – WHETHER EVIDENCE INCLUDES THE ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL IN A WRITTEN ADDRESS

“It is trite law that cases are decided on evidence. Evidence includes oral testimony on oath, affidavits and documents admitted in Court through witnesses or exhibited in an affidavit. It definitely does not include the argument of counsel in a written address. The written address of a counsel no matter how brilliant does not substitute for evidence. See Hayatu Umar vs. State (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1617) 72 at 78”.