Legalpedia Citation: (2024-03) Legalpedia 02624 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

Holden at Yola

Wed Mar 27, 2024

Suit Number: CA/YL/75/2021

CORAM

HON. JUSTICE, ITA.G. MBABA (PJ), OFR JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

HON. JUSTICE, PATRICIA A. MAHMOUD JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

HON. JUSTICE, PETER O. AFFEN JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

PARTIES

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ADAMAWA STATE COMMAND

APPELLANTS

1. RICHARD PIUS
2. SAVANNAH SUGAR COMPANY LIMITED

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The 1st Respondent (Applicant) was an employee of the 2nd Respondent. He was in some problems with the employer, which resulted in his (Applicant’s) suspension from work for about a month. Upon resumption after the one-month suspension, Applicant was redeployed to another department. They claimed the 1st Respondent resumed the new department with more issues and problems which led to the termination of his appointment. This led to a quarrelsome display and threat of physical harm to colleagues, which made the 2nd Respondent to lodge a complaint with the Police. The Police took and detained him from 11th May, 2018 to 17th May, 2018, within which period he claimed he was treated inhumanely. He applied for the enforcement of his fundamental rights.

The trial Court granted the fundamental Rights Action sought by Applicant (now 1st Respondent) against the Appellant and awarded punitive and exemplary damages to the tune of One million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira (N1,500,000.00) in his favour and against the Appellants.

Aggrieved by the decision, the Appellant filed the instant Appeal.

 

HELD

Appeal dismissed

ISSUES

 Whether the trial Court was right when it found that the Fundamental Human Rights of the 1st Respondent were violated by the Appellants?

 

RATIONES DECIDENDI

POLICE – WHERE THE POLICE ACTS IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND OTHER LAWS REGULATING ITS CONDUCT – GENERAL DUTIES OF THE POLICE – MEANING OF POLICE POWER – CONDUCT OF POLICE OFFICERS WHILE CARRYING OUT THEIR STATUTORY DUTIES

Appellant cannot claim Constitutional right to arrest, detain, interrogate, search and prosecute suspect, when it acts outside or in contempt of the same laws Appellant relies on. Appellant must act within the confines of the said Constitution and other laws regulating its conduct.  It must act in accordance with the law, to be able to enjoy the protection of the law and the Courts.  See the case of LIVING MITIN VS. C.O.P, BAYLSA (2022) LPELR – 59029 (SC):

“Section 4 of the Police Act sets out the general duties of the Police as follows: “4. The Police shall be employed for the prevention and detection of crime, the apprehension of offenders, the preservation of law and order, the protection of life and property and the due enforcement of all laws and regulations with which they are directly charged …” In Fawehinmi Vs I.G.P. (2002) LPELR-1258 (SC) @ 20 D; (2002) 5 SC (Pt.1) 63, this Court referred to the definition of Police power as contained in Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Edition at page 1041 thus: “Police power is the exercise of the sovereign right of a government to promote order, safety, health, morals and general welfare within Constitutional limits and as an essential attribute of government.” The duties and powers of the Police are not in doubt. The issue that often raises questions is the manner in which the duties are performed or the powers exercised. Sections 35(1) (c) and 41 of the Constitution provide: “35(1) Every person shall be entitled to his personal liberty and no person shall be deprived of such liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure permitted by law – (c) for the purpose of bringing him before a Court in execution of the order of a Court or upon reasonable suspicion of his having committed a criminal offence, or to such extent as may be reasonably necessary to prevent his committing a criminal offence. 35(6) Any person who is unlawfully arrested or detained shall be entitled to compensation and public apology from the appropriate authority or person, and in this subsection, “the appropriate authority or person means an authority or person specified by law.”

In the case of MU’AZU VS. THE STATE (2022) LPELR – 57315 (CA) this Court held:

“I adopt the judgment as mine and have nothing useful to add except to warn Police Officers that while carrying out their statutory duty of arrest, investigation and detention, they must do so within the confines of the law and with the fear of God. They are not allowed by law to misuse their statutory power or indeed to use their power arbitrarily. Section 341 of the Police Regulations Cap P19 made pursuant to Section 46 of the Police Act makes any Police Officer who misuses his power to be liable. See Rev. Polycarp Mathew Odiong vs Assistant Inspector General of Police, Zone 6, Calabar (2013) LPELR-20698 (CA). The apex Court made this point clearly in Chief Gani Fawehinmi vs IGP & Ors (2002) LPELR-1258 (SC) in these words: “It is inconceivable that such wide powers and duties of the police must be exercised and performed without any discretion left to responsible police operatives. Unless a statute which confers powers or imposes duties expressly or by necessary implication excludes the exercise of discretion, or the duty demanded is such that leaves no room for discretion, it is my view that discretionary powers are implied and whenever appropriate, exercised for salutary ends. In R. v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis ex parte Blackburn (1968) 2 Q.B 118 at 136, Lord Denning M.R. observed inter alia: “Although the chief officers of police are answerable to the law, there are many fields in which they have a discretion with which the law will not interfere.” No Court should accommodate the misuse of power by any Police Officer. The lower Court rightly in my view did not and his lordship of this Court in the lead judgment has not. I will also not allow this. I condemn the action of the Appellant. For every human action, there are consequences and so the power drunk Appellant will have to pay for his action that has claimed human life.” Per TOBI, JCA (Pp. 49-51, paras. C-A)

See also OHANEDUM & ANOR VS. COP (IMO STATE) & ORS. (2015) LPELR – 24318 (CA) where held:

“Of course, the duty of the Police under the Police Act, or under the Nigerian Constitution, are circumscribed by the law, and must be performed, lawfully. The Police cannot act at large, aligning with mischief makers and criminal elements to become a terror to the citizens and subject law-abiding citizens to harassment, intimidation and fear.”

The Police cannot therefore act, at large, in abuse of its powers, in the name of serving it Constitutional or Statutory duties. The Police authorities are expected to take note of the decisions of the Court on their operations and learn to correct themselves and dwell within the law. – Per I. G. Mbaba, JCA

 

APPEAL – WHERE A FINDING OF A LOWER COURT IS NOT APPEALED AGAINST

I had earlier said that the Appellant did not appeal against the specific findings of the lower Court, as to how it violated the fundamental rights of the 1st Respondent. The said findings therefore remain binding and conclusive. See HASSAN VS. STATE (2021) LPELR – 56572 (CA); EMEKA VS. NWOSU & ORS (2019) LPELR – 52790 (SC); NZE VS. ARIBE (2016) LPELR – 40617 (CA); NNADIKE & ANOR. VS. NWACHUKWU (2019) LPELR – 48131 (SC); ABIODUN VS. STATE (2022) LPELR – 59889 (SC). – Per I. G. Mbaba, JCA

 

CASES CITED

Non Available

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
2. African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap AG, LFN 2004.
3. Police Act
4. Police Regulations Cap P19
   

   CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT