Director Of State Security Service V. Suleiman Ibrahim (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

OLUDOTUN ADEBOLA ADEFOPE-OKOJIE, J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the Judgment of the High Court of Kaduna State delivered on 22/1/13 by M.T.M. Aliyu J in favour of the Respondent.

The facts of this case are that the Respondent, as Applicant before the lower Court, filed an application, pursuant to the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009 seeking the following reliefs:

1. AN ORDER enforcing or securing the Appellants Fundamental Human Rights to dignity of human person and personal liberty as enshrined, guaranteed and protected by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria particularly Section 34 and 35 thereof as amended.
2. A DECLARATION that the forceful arrest and whisking away of the applicant in handcuffs at hands and legs by the agents of the 1st Respondent who subsequently detained him at the SSS Office Kaduna for 7 hours on the 1st day of March, 2012 constitutes a violation of the applicant’s fundamental Rights to Dignity of Human person and personal Liberty as respectfully guaranteed by Section 34(7) a and 35(7) of the 1999 Constitution as amended and

1

is accordingly unconstitutional and illegal.

3. AN Order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st Respondent, its agents and privies from further arresting the applicant, or in any other way violating his rights to dignity of human person, personal Liberty and freedom of movement guaranteed under the provisions of the 1999 Constitution aforementioned .
4. AN ORDER directing the 1st Respondent to publish in a widely circulated news paper, a public apology in respect of their conduct to the Applicant and written apology to the management of Dikko Hospital Kaduna.
5. AND FOR SUCH ORDER(S) as this honorable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.
6. GENERAL DAMAGES in the sum of N10 million, against the 1st Respondent on the footing of the violation of the Applicants Constitutional Rights as amplified in the Relief above.

?Ruling on the application, the lower Court held that the Appellant had no reasonable suspicion that the Respondent committed an offence when he was arrested by the Appellant. While acknowledging the onerous responsibility saddled on the Appellant for prevention and detection of crimes, held that the rights

2

that enure to the Respondent can only be violated by the Appellant upon a reasonable suspicion of the Respondent having committed an offence. He accordingly found in favour of the Respondent.

Dissatisfied with this decision, the Appellant appealed to this Court by Notice of Appeal dated 3/7/13. In prosecution of the appeal, the Appellant, on 5/3/15, filed a Brief of Arguments on the same date, but deemed properly filed by leave of the Court on 19/3/15. The Brief was settled by Bayero Dari, Counsel from the Attorney General?s Chambers, in which two issues were formulated for determination:

1. Whether the trial Court was justified in holding that the failure of Appellant to acknowledge or respond to Exhibit 2 supports the Respondents claim
2. Whether in the light of the affidavit before the trial Court, the trial Court was justified in holding that the Respondent?s right to personal Liberty and right to dignity of human person under Section 35(1)a of the Constitution were violated by the Appellant.

In response, Tajudeen Olodoja Esq., in the Respondent’s Brief of Arguments, dated and filed on 25/11/15 but deemed properly

3

filed on 17/2/16 pursuant to leave of this Court, formulated a sole issue for determination, namely:

WHETHER the learned trial judge was right when he held that the Respondent’s rights to personal Liberty and dignity of human persons under Section 34(1)a and 35(1) c of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) were violated by the Appellant.

I shall adopt the Respondent’s issue as the sole issue that arises for determination, being succinct, and also encompassing the issues raised by the Appellant, as follows: