Dominic Peter Ekanem V. Assistant Inspector General of Police (Zone 6) (2007)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

VICTOR AIMEPOMO OMAGE, J.C.A.

In this appeal, the appellant sought in the High Court, Calabar on 14/6/05:

(i) “A declaration that the arrest and detention of the applicant not being in consonance with the provisions of section 35(i) (c), Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, (in that the respondent cannot reasonably suppose that the applicant is reasonably suspected of having committed any criminal offence in flagrant violation of the said Constitution and so wrongful and unlawful).

(ii) “A declaration that the removal of applicant’s wearing effects save his shorts, the non provision of beds or other sleeping materials, thus causing applicant to either stand up sleeping, sit sleeping or sleep on bare cold floor in the present inclement weather constitute inhuman and degrading treatment, torture and therefore unconstitutional, wrongful and unlawful.”

The grounds upon which the orders are sought are stated in the record of proceedings in the court below.

The arrest and detention of the applicant by the respondent since 8th June, 2005 in the circumstances which are inconsistent with any supposition that applicant is reasonably suspected of having committed any criminal offence constitute a violation of applicant’s right to personal liberty.

(iii) “The removal of applicant’s wearing apparels, and the none provisions of any sleeping materials to the applicant causing the applicant to stand up sleeping or sit sleeping or to sleep on the bare floor in the prevailing inclement weather amount to inhuman and degrading treatment and therefore unconstitutional.”

The affidavit in support of the ex parte motion as well as of that of the motion on notice relate in some specific details the circumstances and occasions of the arrest of the applicant.

The relevant positions of the lengthy facts in support of the motion will be summarized at the appropriate time. The applicant’s ex parte motion was heard by the trial court on 23rd June, 2005, when the court granted the applicant, Dominic Peter Ekanem, leave to apply to the court for enforcement of his constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights in section 34 and 35 of the 1999 Constitution, and the order to produce in court, the said Dominic Peter Ekanem. Pending the hearing of the motion on notice, the order of court is to operate as a stay of execution.

The ruling on the motion on notice was delivered by the court after the trial court had taken evidence from both parties in furtherance of affidavit in support of the motion on notice and the counter affidavit filed by the respondent. The ruling of the trial court delivered on 27/9/05 contained the recitals of the facts as follows:

“On 12th April, 2005, a village meeting was summoned at Uyo, Akwa Ibom State. Midway into the meeting, three vehicles drove into the meeting venue carrying more than 50 able bodied, well armed men. They identified ACP Inyang as the man in the photograph they were carrying and commenced beating him up.

They dragged him outside and tried to force him into their vehicle which he resisted. Youth in the village joined in the resistance and freed him. ACP Inyang lodged a report at Itak Police Station. There was an explosion in one of the vehicles. The incident was referred to the Ikot Akpan Abia Police Station for investigation. This was later transferred to Zone 6 Police – Calabar. It is the Zone 6, Calabar that the applicant was invited as a witness before (the respondent) after making a statement, the applicant was detained and arrested.”

The applicant submitted that the arrest and detention does not accord with the provisions of section 35(1) of the 1999 Constitution.

He said the application for enforcement of the applicant’s fundamental right was taken before the High Court, Calabar, because the applicant is detained in Calabar within the jurisdiction of the court.