IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE F.C.T.

IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT APO, ABUJA
ON WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021
BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE ABUBAKAR HUSSAINI MUSA
JUDGE

SUIT NO.: FCT/HC/CV/3499/2020

BETWEEN:
ALH. MOHAMMED BELLO SAIDU APPLICANT
AND
1. THE NIGERIAN POLICE FORCE
2. THE INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE
3. SUNDAY IDOWU RESPONDENTS
(IPO I.G.P. MONITORING UNIT ABUJA)
4. DSP SISILIA BROWN

JUDGMENT
This Judgment is in respect of an application for the enforcement of the
fundamental rights of the Applicant.

By an Originating Motion on Notice dated and filed on the 21 st of December,

2020, the Applicant, Alhaji Mohammed Bello Saidu, through his Counsel, E. C.
Ezeifedikwa Esq. brought this application for the enforcement of his
fundamental rights. In the application, the Applicant seeks the following reliefs
from this Honourable Court:-

1. A Declaration that it is the constitutional right of all citizens, the Applicant

inclusive, to freedom and liberty inclusive of the right to contractual
engagement in economics and business undertakings, without let or
hindrance except in accordance with law, rule of law, the extant

JUDGMENT IN ALH. MOHAMMED BELLO SAIDU V. THE NIGERIAN POLICE FORCE & 3 OTHERS Page 1
 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the African Charter on
Peoples’ and Human Rights.
2. A Declaration that the constant act of harassing, humiliating and
dehumanizing the Applicant on a spurious allegation that is totally devoid of
any criminality but contractual in nature by the 1st to 3rd Respondents at the
behest of the 4th Respondent, amounts to abuse of office, impunity,
oppressive use of official position to satisfy private need/individual (sic) and
contrary to the 1999 Constitution, the extant laws of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria and the African Charter on Peoples’ and Human Rights.
3. A Declaration that the threats by the 4th Respondent in using and continue
to use the 1st to 3rd Respondents to harass and dehumanize the Applicant
on a spurious allegation that they are carrying out investigation in a matter
that is totally devoid of any criminality is not only impunious (sic) but an
abuse of office/power and a crass violation/infraction of the Applicant’s
fundamental rights to freedom, liberty, movement and human dignity
enshrined in the 1999 Constitution and the extant laws of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria, the African Charter on Peoples’ and Human Rights.
4. A Declaration that the 1st to 3rd Respondents are not in any way a debt
recovery agency of the Federal Republic of Nigeria nor a money extortion
agency.
5. An Order of perpetual of (sic) injunction restraining/prohibiting the 1st to 3rd
Respondents and all its agents from further inviting, arresting, detaining,
interfering, tampering or in any way however whatsoever (sic) restrict, limit
or abridge the fundamental rights of the Applicant with regard to all
matters/issues except in accordance with the 1999 Constitution and all
extant laws.

JUDGMENT IN ALH. MOHAMMED BELLO SAIDU V. THE NIGERIAN POLICE FORCE & 3 OTHERS Page 2
6. An Order directing the 4th Respondent to approach any competent civil
court of law for ventilating his (sic) grievances and seek redress for any
monies she is claiming from the Applicant, if she feels she has any
legitimate cause of action instead of employing the apparatus of the
Nigerian Police Force and its officers to do money recovery.
7. ₦20,000,000.00 (Twenty Million Naira) only as compensatory,
exemplary/aggravated damages payable to the 1st Respondent (sic) by the
Respondents jointly and severally.
8. And for such further or other Orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit
to make in the circumstances of this application.

In compliance with the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Proceedings) Rules,

2009, the Applicant supported the Motion on Notice with the Statement in
support of the application detailing the name and description of the Applicant,
the reliefs sought, and the grounds upon which the reliefs were being sought.
Also in support of the application were the affidavit and the written address in
support of the Motion on Notice. No exhibits were annexed to the affidavit.

This matter came up for the first time in this Court on the 18th of February,
2021 for mention. Counsel for the Applicant was in Court but the Respondents
were not in Court and were not represented by Counsel. The matter was
adjourned to the 4th of March, 2021 for hearing. On the 4th of March, 2021,
Counsel for the Applicant was in Court for the Applicant but the Respondents
were neither in Court nor were they represented by Counsel of their choice.
With the evidence of service of the originating processes and the hearing
notices in the case file, this Honourable Court allowed the Counsel for the
Applicant to adopt his processes and argue his case. I shall summarise the
case of the Applicant and his legal arguments in respect of same presently.

JUDGMENT IN ALH. MOHAMMED BELLO SAIDU V. THE NIGERIAN POLICE FORCE & 3 OTHERS Page 3
In the affidavit in support of the Motion on Notice, the Applicant, who was the
deponent therein, deposed to the facts which gave rise to this application.
Briefly, the facts as stated by the Applicant/deponent are as follows: the 4th
Respondent, DSP Sisilia Brown, a Police Officer, approached the Applicant, a
businessman whose business interests extend to different fields of economic
activities, for a parcel of land to purchase. After a series of discussions and
negotiations which included searches at the Abuja Geographical Information
System (AGIS), the 4th Respondent and the Applicant entered into a contract
for the sale of three plots of land. Those plots, which were specifically identified
and described as Plot 64 Sabon Lugbe, F.C.T., Abuja, Plot B113 Sabon
Lugbe, F.C.T. Abuja, and Plot B105 Sabon Lugbe, F.C.T. Abuja, were sold to
the 4th Respondent at ₦4,000,000.00 (Four Million Naira) per plot, bringing the
total sum to ₦12,000,000.00 (Twelve Million Naira).

More than one year after the assignment of the plots of land had been
concluded, the 4th Respondent resiled from the contract and demanded that
the Applicant refund the money for Plot B113 Sabon Lugbe, F.C.T. Abuja and
Plot B105 Sabon Lugbe, F.C.T. Abuja to her; a demand that the Applicant
reluctantly acceded to when he transferred the ownership of a Toyota Camry
2010 model valued at ₦6,000,000.00 (Six Million Naira) only to the 4 th
Respondent in the presence of one Mr. Shuibu Jibrin and made a cash
payment of ₦2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira) only to the 4 th Respondent in
the presence of Mr. Suleiman Bala Sambo. Upon these repayments, the 4th
Respondent returned the documents of title in respect of those two plots of
land to him.

The Applicant was therefore surprised when the 4th Respondent began to
demand more money from him, claiming that she had outstanding balance to

JUDGMENT IN ALH. MOHAMMED BELLO SAIDU V. THE NIGERIAN POLICE FORCE & 3 OTHERS Page 4
collect from him. According to the Applicant, the 4th Respondent threatened to
use her status as a Police Officer to ensure he paid the money she was
demanding from him. According to the Applicant, the 4th Respondent did
deploy the instrumentality of her office to intimidate and harass him, when, in
2013, she reported him to DSP Umar Garba, in 2014 when she reported him to
the Inspector-General of Police Monitoring Unit and in June, 2020 when she
reported him to the Gwagwa Divisional Police Station. The Applicant averred
that on each of those occasions, he was arrested by the concerned Police
authority. He, however, did not state whether he was detained after his arrest
and, if he was detained, the length of time he spent in the custody of the
concerned Police authority.

The Applicant bemoaned the constant threats, intimidation, extortion,

harassment and embarrassment served him by the 4 th Respondent who had
been using the instrumentality of the 1st and 2nd Respondents through the 3rd
Respondent as a debt recovery agency these past seven years. He has
therefore approached this Honourable Court for solace and reprieve through
this application.

In the written address in support of the application, learned Counsel for the
Applicant formulated a sole issue for determination which I have taken the
liberty to reproduce herein: “Whether the Respondents can continue
arresting/detaining or threaten to arrest/detain, harass, intimidate and
generally infringe, restrict, limit, abridge the Applicant’s fundamental
rights to liberty, and human dignity in breach of their fundamental
rights/rights enshrined in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria and the African Charter on Human and People’s Right.”

JUDGMENT IN ALH. MOHAMMED BELLO SAIDU V. THE NIGERIAN POLICE FORCE & 3 OTHERS Page 5
In his argument on the sole issue he formulated, learned Counsel submitted
that this Honourable Court had the requisite jurisdiction to hear the present
application by virtue of section 46(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic
of Nigeria 1999 as amended. He contended that the Applicant had placed
sufficient material particulars before the Court to be entitled to judgment in his
favour. He reproduced the contents of paragraph 2(c) through to (t) of the
affidavit in support of the Originating Motion on Notice in support of his
assertion that the Applicant had placed ample material particulars before the
Court to sway the mind of the Court in his favour.

It was the contention of learned Counsel for the Applicant that fundamental
rights were no longer favours, dispensed to the citizens at the whims and
caprices of the operatives of the Government. For his argument on the sole
issue he formulated, he cited and relied on the following authorities: George v.
Federal Republic of Nigeria (2014) All FWLR (Pt. 718) 879; Aoko v.
Fagbemi (1961) 2 All NLR 400; Machika v. Kaduna State Housing
Authority (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1233) 15 at 47 A – B; Uzuokwu v. Ezeonu &
Ors (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt. 200) 708; Ezeadukwu v. Maduka (1997) 8 NWLR
(Pt. 518) 660 – 661; FRN & Anor v. Ifegwu (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt. 842) 113 at
135 para B; and Federal Civil Service Commission v. Noye (1998) 2 NWLR
(Pt. 16) 650 at 702 paras D – F.

He finally submitted that the acts of the Respondents constituted a breach of

the fundamental rights of the Applicant and that if the Respondents were not
restrained via a judicial order, they would continue to intimidate and embarrass
the Applicant. Reminding the Court that it was its duty to safeguard the rights
and liberties of individuals and protect same, learned Counsel urged this
Honourable Court to grant all the reliefs sought by the Applicant.

JUDGMENT IN ALH. MOHAMMED BELLO SAIDU V. THE NIGERIAN POLICE FORCE & 3 OTHERS Page 6
The above was a concise precis of the case of the Applicant. Besides the fact
that the Respondents were not represented by Counsel, no process was filed
on their behalf and which the Court would have, pursuant to the provisions of
Order XII Rule 3, deemed adopted and therefore considered in this Judgment.
This Judgment, therefore, is based on the unchallenged evidence of the
Applicant. Though unchallenged, the reliefs sought must not necessarily be
granted as a matter of course. The Applicant who seeks to enjoy the judicial
protection of this Court must establish to the satisfaction of this Court that they
are entitled to the reliefs which they seek this Honourable Court to dispense.

Having gone through the case of the Applicant, I believe the issue which this
Court must concern itself is quite simple and straightforward and it is this:
“Whether from the totality of the facts disclosed in the affidavit in
support of the application for the enforcement of the fundamental rights
of the Applicant, the Applicant is not entitled to the reliefs sought
herein?”

Section 46(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as

amended provides that “any person who alleges that any of the provisions
of this Chapter has been, is being or is likely to be contravened in any
State in relation to him may apply to a High Court for redress.” This
constitutional provision reechoes in Order II Rule 1 of the Fundamental Rights
(Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009 where it is stated that “Any person
who alleges that any of the Fundamental Rights provided for in the
Constitution or African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights
(Ratification and Enforcement) Act and to which he is entitled, has been,
is being, or is likely to be infringed, may apply to the Court in the State
where the infringement occurs or is likely to occur, for redress.”

JUDGMENT IN ALH. MOHAMMED BELLO SAIDU V. THE NIGERIAN POLICE FORCE & 3 OTHERS Page 7
 The purpose of the fundamental rights enforcement proceeding is as contained
in the Preamble to the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules,
2009. Specifically, and of interest to this action, paragraph (3) of the Preamble
stipulates what it considers to be the overriding objectives of the Fundamental
Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009. Of interest are sub-paragraphs
(a), (b), (c), (d) and (f) of paragraph (3) of the Preamble. I have taken the
liberty to reproduce the above provisions in extensor below:-

Paragraph 3:

“The overriding objectives of these Rules are as follows:

(a) The Constitution, especially Chapter IV, as well as the African

Charter, shall be expansively and purposely interpreted and
applied, with a view to advancing and realizing the rights and
freedoms contained in them and affording the protections
intended by them.
(b)For the purpose of advancing but never for the purpose of
restricting the applicant’s rights and freedoms, the Court shall
respect municipal, regional and international bills of rights cited
to it or brought to its attention or of which the Court is aware,
whether these bills constitute instruments in themselves or form
parts of larger documents like constitutions. Such bills include:
(i) The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and other
instruments (including protocols) in the African regional human
rights system.

JUDGMENT IN ALH. MOHAMMED BELLO SAIDU V. THE NIGERIAN POLICE FORCE & 3 OTHERS Page 8
(ii) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other
instruments (including protocols) in the United Nations human
rights system,
(c) For the purpose of advancing but never for the purpose of
restricting the applicant’s rights and freedoms, the Court may
make consequential orders as may be just and expedient.
(d)The Court shall proactively pursue enhanced access to justice
for all classes of litigants, especially the poor, the illiterate, the
uninformed, the vulnerable, the incarcerated, and the
unrepresented.
(f) The Court shall in a manner calculated to advance Nigerian
democracy, good governance, human rights and culture, pursue
the speedy and efficient enforcement and realization of human
rights.

The Courts have accorded these provisions judicial recognition in a plethora of

decisions and have gone on to hold that it is the duty of the Courts to uphold
and give effect to these overriding objectives. In Johnson v. Udonsek & Ors
(2017) LPELR-43647 (CA), the Court of Appeal per Adah, JCA, after
examining the provisions of the Preamble to the Fundamental Rights
(Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009, particularly Paragraph 3(c) and (d) held
at pages 11 – 13, paras F – B that “the objective to be driven by the Court
is to advance and not to restrict the pursuit of rights. The objective is
also to be proactive in enhancing access to justice for all who desire to
enforce their fundamental rights. The objectives were set as guides to
every enforcing Court to have tolerance for substantial justice rather than
technical justice.” See also Federal Polytechnic Bauchi & Anor v. Aboaba

JUDGMENT IN ALH. MOHAMMED BELLO SAIDU V. THE NIGERIAN POLICE FORCE & 3 OTHERS Page 9
& Anor (2013) LPELR-21916 (CA); Aig-Imoukhuede v. Ubah & Ors (2014)
LPELR-23965 (CA); Rumugu Air and Space (Nig) Ltd v. FAAN & Anor
(2016) LPELR-41506 (CA); and Chima v. FBN & Anor (2017) LPELR-43652
(CA).

Inasmuch the overriding objectives contained in the Preamble to the

Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009 remain the guiding
principles for the Courts in fundamental rights enforcement suits and the
Courts are enjoined always to do substantial justice, the suits must, however,
conform to the conditions and prerequisites stipulated in the Fundamental
Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009. This is because of the sui
generis nature of fundamental rights matters. In IGP v. Ikpila & Anor (2015)
LPELR-40630 (CA) Georgewill, JCA noted at page 60 paras D – F that
“However, it must be borne in mind that proceedings under the
Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules are neither strictly
civil nor criminal proceedings. They are sui generis, being proceedings
of their own kind. At best therefore, they are an hybrid proceeding, taking
on some of the features of the different types of proceedings in our
Courts but still remaining sui generis. See Jim Jaja V. COP Rivers State
(2013) 22 WRN 39 @ p. 66.”

In Enukeme v. Mazi (2014) LPELR-23540 (CA), the Court of Appeal per

Mbaba, JCA at pages 21 – 23 paras E held that,

“I must start by stating the obvious, that fundamental rights

enforcement procedure is sui generis, being specially and
specifically designed, with its own unique rules by the
Constitution, to address issues of fundamental rights of persons

JUDGMENT IN ALH. MOHAMMED BELLO SAIDU V. THE NIGERIAN POLICE FORCE & 3 OTHERS Page 10
 protected under the Constitution. Of course, consideration of
issues founded on breaches of fundamental rights in this case
must be handled within the exclusive confines of the
Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules of 2009,
which actually came to correct some perceived wrongs and
hardship which the 1979 Rules (fashioned on the 1979
Constitution) caused to Applicants seeking enforcement of their
fundamental rights, especially in the areas of adherence to
undue technicalities and delays in determining applications. The
preamble to the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure)
Rules (FREPR) 2009, particularly 1, 3(a), (b) and (d), state as
follows: “(1) The Court shall constantly and consciously seek to
give effect to the overriding objectives of these Rules at every
stage of human rights action, especially whenever it exercises
any power given it by these Rules or any other law and whenever
it applies or interprets any rule ... (3) The overriding objectives of
these Rules are as follows: (a) The Constitution, especially
chapter iv, as well as the African Charter, shall be expansively,
and purposely interpreted and applied, with a view to advancing
and realizing the rights and freedom contained in them and
affording the protections intended by them. (b)... (c) For the
purpose of advancing but never for the purpose of restricting the
Applicant's Rights and freedoms, the Court may make
consequential orders as may be just and expedient. (d) The
Court, shall proactively pursue enhanced access to justice for all
classes of litigants, especially the poor, the illiterate, the
uninformed, the vulnerable, the incarcerated and the
JUDGMENT IN ALH. MOHAMMED BELLO SAIDU V. THE NIGERIAN POLICE FORCE & 3 OTHERS Page 11
 unrepresented....” I believe it was in realization of such
objectives that the law stipulates in Order ix Rule 1 as follows:
“Where at any stage in the course of or in connection with any
proceedings, there has, by any reason of anything done or left
undone, been failure to comply with the requirement as to time,
place or manner or form, the failure shall be treated as an
irregularity and may not nullify such proceedings, except as they
relate to: “(i) Mode of commencement of the application; (ii) The
subject matter is not within chapter iv of the Constitution or the
African Charter on Human and People's Right (Ratification and
Enforcement) Act.””

See also Skye Bank v. Njoku & Ors (2016) LPELR- 40447 (CA) where the
Court of Appeal cited with approval and followed its decision in Enukeme v.
Mazi, supra.

As sui generis proceedings, fundamental rights enforcement suits must be for

the enforcement of any of the rights enshrined in Chapter IV of the Constitution
of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended. The provisions of section
46(1) of the Constitution and Order II Rule 1 of the Fundamental Rights
(Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009 made by the Chief Justice of Nigeria
pursuant to the provisions of section 46(3) of the Constitution imply that the
rights enforceable by way of a fundamental rights enforcement proceeding are
rights that are specifically delineated in Chapter IV of the Constitution. These
rights, for the sake of clarity, are contained in sections 33 to 44 of the
Constitution and are, respectively, the right to life, the right to dignity of human
person, the right to personal liberty, the right to fair hearing, the right to private
and family life, the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, the

JUDGMENT IN ALH. MOHAMMED BELLO SAIDU V. THE NIGERIAN POLICE FORCE & 3 OTHERS Page 12
right to freedom of expression and the press, the right to peaceful assembly
and association, the right to freedom of movement, the right to freedom from
discrimination, the right to acquire and own immovable property anywhere in
Nigeria and the right to be paid compensation for compulsory acquisition of
property. An application for the enforcement of the fundamental rights of an
applicant which does not seek any of the reliefs contained in Chapter IV of the
Constitution must necessarily fail. Similarly, any relief sought which is not one
of the rights contained in Chapter IV of the Constitution will not be granted. In
Aig-Imoukhuede v. Ubah & Ors, supra, the Court of Appeal held that the
provisions of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009
should not be interpreted in such a manner as to give protection to rights that
are not intended in the Rules. In Mujaid v. IBEDC &Ors (2020) LPELR-50754
(CA), the Court of Appeal held that the rights to be protected must be those
covered in Chapter IV of the Constitution. See also Omonyahuy & Ors v. IGP
& Ors (2015) LPELR-25581 (CA).

Another feature of fundamental rights proceedings as sui generis proceedings

is that they are decided on the basis of affidavit evidence. The facts deposed to
in the affidavit in support of the application for the enforcement of the
Applicant’s fundamental rights must be such that they can ground the reliefs
sought. See Mbang v. Janet & Ors (2014) LPELR-22656 (CA). In Anowu v.
Ulu & Anor (2020) LPELR-50754(CA) the Court of Appeal held at pages 15 –
16 paras C – A that,

“It is trite that, the facts averred in the affidavits placed before
the Court by the parties in fundamental rights enforcement
proceedings constitute the pleadings, and the adduced evidence
in the matter, see; SSS & ANOR v MALLAM NASIR EL-RUFAI

JUDGMENT IN ALH. MOHAMMED BELLO SAIDU V. THE NIGERIAN POLICE FORCE & 3 OTHERS Page 13
 OFR; JACK v UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE MAKURDI (2004)
LPELR- 1587 (SC); UKAOBASI v EZIMORA (2016) LPELR - 40174
(CA); ASCO INVESTMENT LTD & ANOR v EZEIGBO & ANOR
(2015) ALL FWLR (PT. 767) P 766 AT 784. In IKUDAYISI & ORS v
OYINGBO & ORS (2015) LPELR - 40525, ABIRIYI, JCA (P.16,
PARAS. A - E) held; ‘The special procedure of the Fundamental
Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules is not to be equated with
the normal procedure in actions tried on pleadings and to which
normal rules of pleadings apply. In the procedure under the
Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, the
affidavit constitutes the evidence. If only evidence before the
Court or judge is that of the complainant, that is the material he
should consider...’”

With the foregoing at the back of my mind, I return to the reliefs contained in
the Originating Motion on Notice and the affidavit of the Applicant in support of
the application to determine if the facts deposed therein are sufficient to ground
the reliefs sought in this application. I have already set out the reliefs sought by
the Applicant above and there is no point repeating same.

I have carefully gone through the affidavit in support, the contents of which I
have taken the pains to summarise above. Undoubtedly, the relationship which
existed between the Applicant and the 4th Respondent was contractual in
nature. This can be seen from the depositions in paragraphs 2 (c), (d), (e), (f),
(g) and (h) of the affidavit. Whatever disagreement that arose out of the
relationship is therefore civil in nature and cannot, in anyway, justify the
intervention of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents which are law enforcement
agents. The Courts have been consistently emphatic in its deprecation that it is

JUDGMENT IN ALH. MOHAMMED BELLO SAIDU V. THE NIGERIAN POLICE FORCE & 3 OTHERS Page 14
not the responsibility of law enforcement agencies and their operatives to act
as debt recovery agencies. See Skye Bank v. Njoku, supra; Nzegbuna &
Anor v. Okoye & Anor (2018) LPELR-43943 (CA); Olusegun & Anor v.
EFCC & Ors (2018) LPELR-45825(CA); Abah v. UBN Plc & Ors (2015)
LPELR-24758 (CA).

In NB Plc v. Akperashi & Anor (2019) LPELR-47267 (CA), the Court of

Appeal per Otisi JCA at pages 26 – 30 paras C - F held that,

“The powers of the police as referred to by the Appellant are,

concisely provided in Section 4 of the Police Act Cap. P19, LFN,
2004, to be as follows: “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, and shall
perform such military duties within or outside Nigeria as may be
required of them by, or under the authority of this or any other
Act.” These provisions do not in any way empower the police to
settle civil disputes of any colour, including enforcing terms of a
contract gone sour. Indeed, judicial pronouncements on this
position of the law are legion. I will only mention a few. In
Nwadiugwu v. IGP & Ors (2015) LPELR-26027(CA), this Court per
Iyizoba, JCA held, page 35 of the E-Report: “The 1st to 5th
Respondents are neither debt collectors nor Arbitrators and
Section 24 of the Police Act 2004 does not list settlement of
disputes or collection of debts amongst the duties of the Police.”
In concurring with the lead Judgment in Ibiyeye & Anor v. Gold &

JUDGMENT IN ALH. MOHAMMED BELLO SAIDU V. THE NIGERIAN POLICE FORCE & 3 OTHERS Page 15
 Ors. (2011) LPELR-8778(CA), Mbaba, JCA, observed, at page 58
of the E-Report: “...the resort to the police by parties for
recovery of debts, outstanding under contractual relationship,
has been repeatedly deprecated by the Courts. The Police have
also been condemned, and rebuked, several times, for
abandoning its primary duties of crime detection, prevention and
control, to dabbling in enforcement or settlement of debts and
contracts between quarreling parties, and for using its coercive
powers to breach citizen's rights and/or promote illegalities and
oppression. Unfortunately, despite all the decided cases on this
issue, the problem persists and the unholy alliance between
aggrieved contractors/creditors with the Police remains at the
root of many fundamental rights breaches in our Courts.” Again
in Abah v. Union Bank of Nigeria Plc & Ors (2015) LPELR-
24758(CA), Mbaba, JCA said, pages 97 - 98 of the E-Report: “We
have stated, repeatedly, that the police (or any Law Enforcement
Agency, for that matter, including the Economic and Financial
Crimes Commissions (EFCC) is not allowed to dabble into
enforcement of civil contracts and agreements, or to engage in
recovery of debts, under the pretext of doing lawful duties. See
the case of Oceanic Securities International Ltd vs. Balogun &
Ors (2013) ALL FWLR (Pt. 677) 653; (2012) LPELR 9218 CA;
where it was held: “Appellant could not therefore hide under the
cover of reporting the 1st Respondent for issuance of
dishonoured cheques, to subject him to the ordeal of arrest and
detention... and escape the wrath of the law. He was pursuing
the recovery of the alleged debt and resorted to the use of the
JUDGMENT IN ALH. MOHAMMED BELLO SAIDU V. THE NIGERIAN POLICE FORCE & 3 OTHERS Page 16
 Police...” See also: Abdullahi v. Alhaji Suleiman Buhari & Anor
(2004) LPELR-11257(CA); Arab Contractors (O. A. O.) Nig Ltd V.
Umanah (2012) LPELR-7927(CA); Okafor & Anor v. AIG Police
Zone II Onikan & Ors (2019) LPELR-46505(CA). The Appellant
admitted in their letter to the 2nd Respondent that its relationship
with the 1st Respondent was contractual. The question is: why
would the Appellant write to the 2nd Respondent and create the
impression that there had been aggravation of any degree from
the 1st Respondent for which they have been compelled to act
with restraint in the face of the provocation? The contents of the
said letter were really an attempt by the Appellant to colour the
purely civil contractual obligation between the Appellant and the
1st Respondent with criminality. In my view, the 1st Respondent
rightly described the letter in paragraph 11 of his supporting
affidavit, page 11 of the Record of Appeal, as: 'unkind, malicious,
wicked and unfounded.' I see the regrettable action of the
Appellant as being in line with the unfortunate pervading culture
of impunity sprouting energetically in this Country. See also:
Abugo v. Aromuaino (2018) LPELR-46142(CA); Diamond Bank &
Anor v. Irechukwu & Ors (2018) LPELR-44866(CA). In the recent
case of EFCC v. Diamond Bank Plc & Ors (2018) LPELR-
44217(SC), the Apex Court, per Bage, JSC graphically described
this regrettable trend in this manner, page 25 of the E-Report:
“What is even more disturbing in recent times is the way and
manner the Police and some other security agencies, rather than
focus squarely on their statutory functions of investigation,
preventing and prosecuting crimes, allow themselves to be used
JUDGMENT IN ALH. MOHAMMED BELLO SAIDU V. THE NIGERIAN POLICE FORCE & 3 OTHERS Page 17
 by overzealous and/or unscrupulous characters for the recovery
of debts arising from simple contracts, loans or purely civil
transactions. Our security agencies, particularly the police, must
know that the citizenry’s confidence in them ought to first be
ensured by the agencies themselves by jealously guarding the
integrity of the uniform and powers conferred on them. The
beauty of salt is in its taste. Once salt loses its own taste, its
value is irredeemably lost. I say this now and again, our security
agencies, particularly the police, are not debt recovery
agencies.””

Similarly, in Omuma Micro-Finance Bank Nig Ltd v. Ojinnaka (2018)

LPELR-43988 (CA), Mbaba JCA in his concurring judgment at pages 15 – 17
paras F – A held that,

“We have held, several times, that one who procures the Police
or any law enforcement agency, to dabble in a purely civil
contract, to recover debt for the party to an agreement, must be
ready to bear the consequences of such unlawful act of the
Police/law enforcement agency, acting in abuse of their powers.
See the case of Anogwie & Ors vs Odom & Ors (2016) LPELR-
40214 CA; Ogbonna vs. Ogbonna (2014) LPELR- 22308; (2014) 23
WRN 48, and Abah vs UBN Plc & Ors(2015) LPELR -24758 CA,
where it was held: “We have stated repeatedly that the Police or
any Law Enforcement Agency, for that matter, including the
Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is not
allowed to dabble into enforcement of civil contracts and
agreements, or to engage in recovery of debts, under the pretext

JUDGMENT IN ALH. MOHAMMED BELLO SAIDU V. THE NIGERIAN POLICE FORCE & 3 OTHERS Page 18
 of doing lawful duties.” See the case of Oceanic Securities
International Ltd vs Balogun & Ors (2013) ALL FWLR (Pt. 677)
653; Ibiyeye & Anor vs. Gold & Ors (2012) ALL FWLR (Pt. 659)
1074. And in the case of Skye Bank Plc vs. Njoku & Ors (2016)
LPELR-40447 (CA), it was held: “...a party that employs the
Police or any law enforcement agency to violate the fundamental
right of a citizen should be ready to face the consequences,
either alone or with the misguided agency... The Police have no
business helping parties to settle or recover debt...” See again
Ogbonna vs Ogbonna (2014) 23 WRN 48.”

It is on the strength of the unchallenged facts contained in the affidavit in

support of the application and the principles of law enunciated in the judicial
authorities cited above that I come to the inevitable conclusion that the
Respondents were in remiss when the 4th Respondent activated the
mechanism of the 1st and 2nd Respondents to settle a score arising from a
simple contract; and the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents heedlessly abandoned
their statutory duties and dabbled into a purely civil dispute where their
discipline, expertise and training were not required. It is particularly
condemnable that the 4th Respondent, as a law enforcement officer who
should know better, chose rather to tow the path of official excess and
irresponsibility which amounts to gross abuse of her office as a Police Officer.
This Honourable Court shall not indulge and tolerate such irresponsible abuse
of office.

There is no doubt that the Applicant has clearly made out a case of
infringement of his fundamental rights. It is my considered view that the
paragraphs of the affidavit which I find relevant in this regard are paragraphs 2

JUDGMENT IN ALH. MOHAMMED BELLO SAIDU V. THE NIGERIAN POLICE FORCE & 3 OTHERS Page 19
(i), (j), (k), (l), (m), (n), (o), (p), (q) and (r). These paragraphs established
conclusively that the rights of the Applicant to personal liberty and dignity of the
human person were breached in 2013, 2014, and 2020 and are in imminent
danger of being breached following the relentless threats and intimidating
presence of the 3rd Respondent and other operatives of the 1st and 2nd
Respondents acting at the behest of the 4th Respondent. The fact that none of
the Respondents, particularly the 4th Respondent who is at the epicentre of this
storm, deemed it necessary to file a counter-affidavit narrating their own sides
of the controversy and, in the process, challenging the facts in the affidavit in
support of the Applicant’s application means that this application is decided
solely on the unchallenged affidavit evidence of the Applicant. Their failure to
file any process in opposition is deemed an admission of the facts contained in
the Applicant’s affidavit in support of his application. In Anowu v. Ulu & Anor,
supra, the Court held that if the only evidence before the Court was that of the
Applicant, the Court was bound to consider that material.

In NB Plc v. Akperashi, supra, the Court of Appeal at pages 33 – 35 paras A

– F per Otisi, JCA held that,

“It is trite law that any fact in an affidavit which is neither

challenged nor contradicted is undisputed and is deemed
admitted by the adversary and the Court will so hold and act
thereon; Jim Jaja v. Cop Rivers State & Ors (supra), (2012)
LPELR-20621(SC). In The Honda Place Limited v. Globe Motor
Holdings Nigeria Limited (2005) LPELR-3180(SC), Edozie, JSC
succinctly stated, page 33 of the E-Report: “The position of the
law is that when in a situation in which facts are provable by
affidavit, one of the parties deposes to certain facts, his

JUDGMENT IN ALH. MOHAMMED BELLO SAIDU V. THE NIGERIAN POLICE FORCE & 3 OTHERS Page 20
 adversary has a duty to swear to an affidavit to the contrary, if he
disputes the facts. Where such a party fails to swear to an
affidavit to controvert such facts, they may be regarded as duly
established. See Agbaje v. Ibru Sea Foods (1972) 5 SC 50 at 55;
Alagbe v. Abimbola (1978) 2 SC 39 at 40; Ajomale v. Yaduat
(No.1) (1991) 5 NWLR (Pt. 191) 266.” In Chairman, Chief
Executive, NDLEA, Headquarters, Lagos & Ors v. Umeh & Anor
(2014) LPELR-24373(CA), this Court, per Agube, JCA, graphically
put it this way, pages 110-111 of the E-Report: “The Law is trite
that facts sworn to in an Affidavit constitute evidence upon
which the Court can act in the resolution of the issues in
controversy. Thus, where as in this Appeal the case in the trial
Court was fought purely on Affidavit evidence the Deponents are
deemed as witnesses and the Court will treat the Affidavits and
Counter-Affidavits as oral evidence supported by documentary
evidence. See Akeredolu V. Akinremi (1985) 2 N.W.L.R (Pt.10) 787
and Alhaji Jibrin Babale V. Innocent Eze (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.
1257) 48 at 69 Para. H; where as in this case the Appellants did
not deem it fit to file Further Counter-Affidavit to controvert the
averments of the Applicant/1st Respondent's Further Affidavit
and Annexure "FA1" thereto, the Appellants had admitted to the
facts as deposed to in the Further Affidavit and the Court below
was duty bound to act on those uncontroverted facts as the truth
of the matter. See Egbuna V. Egbuna (1989) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 106)
773, Rakol Clinic & Maternity Hospital Ltd. V. Supreme Finance
Investment Co. Ltd. (1991) NWLR (Pt. 612) 513, Long John V.
Blakk (1998) 59 LRCN OOP 3864; and N.P.A. Vs. A.I.CO. (2010) 3
JUDGMENT IN ALH. MOHAMMED BELLO SAIDU V. THE NIGERIAN POLICE FORCE & 3 OTHERS Page 21
 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1182) 487 at 491.” However, any such unchallenged
and uncontradicted facts which are deemed admitted in the
affidavit must be capable of proving and supporting the
Applicant relying on such facts. That is to say, the affidavit
evidence that is unchallenged must necessarily be cogent and
strong enough to sustain the case of the Applicant; Ogoejeofo v.
Ogoejeofo (2006) LPELR-2308(SC); Inegbedion v. Dr. Selo-
Ojemen & Anor (2013) LPELR-19769(SC). The unchallenged
evidence before the lower Court was that the 1 st Respondent was
detained from 18/2/2015 until about 3pm on 19/2/2015 for no
justifiable reason. He was made to spend the night in deplorable
conditions, all for no justifiable cause. He contended that his
said detention violated his rights to personal liberty and human
dignity protected under Sections 35(1) and 34(1) respectively of
the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as
amended). The Court below was duty bound to act on the
uncontroverted facts as the truth of the matter.”

I must, however, state quickly that upon a considered examination of the facts
deposed to in the affidavit, the Applicant has been able to make out a breach
of only his rights to personal liberty and dignity of the human person and the
imminence of their further breach by the Respondents. His first relief which is
for a declaration that it is the constitutional right of all citizens, the Applicant
inclusive, to engage in contractual relationships, economic activities and
business undertakings is not grantable for the singular reason that it is not one
of the rights protected under Chapter IV of the Constitution. So also is the sixth
relief sought in this application. See Aig-Imoukhuede v. Ubah & Ors, supra;

JUDGMENT IN ALH. MOHAMMED BELLO SAIDU V. THE NIGERIAN POLICE FORCE & 3 OTHERS Page 22
Mujaid v. IBEDC & Ors, supra. I am not oblivious of the provisions of Article
XXII(1) of the African Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights which provides
that “all peoples shall have the right to their economic, social and cultural
development with due regard to their freedom and identity and in the
equal enjoyment of the common heritage of mankind.” Though this Charter
has been domesticated in Nigeria and is part of our municipal laws by virtue of
the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and
Enforcement) Act (Cap 10) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, this Act
ranks lower than the Constitution which is our grundnorm. It cannot, therefore,
supplant the Constitution. This is even so, notwithstanding the provisions of
Paragraph 3(b) of the Preamble of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement
Procedure) Rules, 2009 which enjoins the Courts to “respect municipal,
regional and international bills of rights cited to it or brought to its
attention or of which the Court is aware, whether these bills constitute
instruments in themselves or form parts of larger documents like
constitution.” Besides, the economic development of the citizens is provided
for under section 16 of the Constitution. Section 16 forms part of Chapter II of
the Constitution whose provisions are not justiciable by virtue of section 6(6)(c)
of the Constitution.

In the same vein, the Applicant has not been able to establish, through the
facts disclosed in the affidavit in support of his application, how his right to
freedom of movement was breached.

I will not fail to add here that having found that the Respondents were in remiss
when they unlawfully abridged the fundamental rights of the Applicant to
personal liberty and dignity of the human person, it is only logical that this
Honourable Court award damages against them in favour of the Applicant. In

JUDGMENT IN ALH. MOHAMMED BELLO SAIDU V. THE NIGERIAN POLICE FORCE & 3 OTHERS Page 23
Skye Bank v. Njoku, supra, the Court held at page 31 paras D – E that “In
fundamental rights action, damages automatically accrue, once the
Respondent has been adjudged to have violated the Applicant’s
fundamental rights. See Ozide & Ors vs Ewuzie & Ors (2015) LPELR
24482 (CA); Ejefor vs Okeke (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt 665); Anogwie & Ors vs
Odom & Ors (supra).” In Anowu v. Ulu & Anor, supra, the Court observed
at pages 17 – 18 paras D – E that “In JIDE ARULOGUN v COMM. POLICE
LAGOS STATE & ORS (2016) LPELR- 40190 (CA), this Court held that
where a specific amount is claimed, it is for the Court to consider the
claim and in its opinion, the amount that would be justified to
compensate the victim of the breach. For the avoidance of doubt,
common law principles on award of damages do not apply to matters
brought under fundamental rights, when a breach is proved the victim is
entitled to compensation even if no specific amount is claimed. The
damages automatically accrue. See; OZIDE & ORS v EWUZIE & ORS
(2015) LPELR - 24482 (CA); IGWEOKOLO v AKPOYIBO & ORS (2017)
LPELR - 41882 (CA); SSS & ORS v THE INCORPORATED TRUSTEE OF
PEACE CORPS OF NIG & ORS (2019) LPELR- 47274 (CA); JULIUS
BERGER NIG PLC v IGP & ORS (2018) LPELR - 46127; BASHIR BALA
NUHU v SHITTU SALEH & ORS (2014) LPELR - 24616 (CA).”

In view of the foregoing, therefore, it is my considered view and I so hold that

the Applicant is entitled to recover damages against the Respondents for their
breach of his fundamental rights to personal liberty and dignity of the human
person.

In all, I find the application meritorious and the reliefs sought are accordingly
granted to the extent set out below:-

JUDGMENT IN ALH. MOHAMMED BELLO SAIDU V. THE NIGERIAN POLICE FORCE & 3 OTHERS Page 24
 1. That the arrest of the Applicant by the 1st and 2nd Respondents in
2013 and 2014 at the instance of the 4th Respondent over a dispute
which arose from the contractual relationship between the
Applicant and the 4th Respondent is an infringement of the right of
the Applicant to personal liberty and therefore contrary to section
35 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as
amended and Article VI of the African Charter on Human and
Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act.
2. That the persistent threats by the 3rd Respondent and other agents
of the 1st and 2nd Respondents acting at the instance of the 4th
Respondent to arrest the Applicant under the guise of investigating
a criminal complaint is an infringement of the right of the Applicant
to personal liberty as enshrined under section 35 of the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended
and Article VI of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights
(Ratification and Enforcement) Act and against the provisions of
section 46(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria
1999 as amended.
3. That the use of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents by the 4th
Respondents to harass, embarrass, criminalise, arrrest and
intimidate the Applicant over a dispute which arose from a simple
civil contract amounts to abuse of office and constitutes an
infringement of the right of the Applicant to dignity of the human
person.
4. That the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents are hereby restrained from
arresting, inviting or threatening to arrest or invite the Applicant in
respect of the contract for the sale of land between the Applicant
JUDGMENT IN ALH. MOHAMMED BELLO SAIDU V. THE NIGERIAN POLICE FORCE & 3 OTHERS Page 25
 and the 4th Respondent being the dispute that gave rise to this
application.
5. That the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Respondents are hereby ordered jointly to
pay to the Applicant the sum of ₦500,000.00 (Five Hundred
Thousand Naira) only as damages for the breach of the Applicant’s
rights to personal liberty and dignity of the human person. This, it is
hoped, will serve as a lesson to the Police and to deter other law
enforcement agencies from dabbling in purely civil transactions.
6. That the 4th Respondent is hereby ordered to pay to the Applicant
the sum of ₦500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) only as
damages for the breach of the Applicant’s rights to personal liberty
and dignity of the human person.
7. That the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents are hereby ordered jointly
to pay to the Applicant the sum of ₦100,000.00 (one Hundred
Thousand Naira Only) as the cost of instituting and prosecuting this
action.
8. The first relief sought by the Applicant, to wit:“A Declaration that it
is the constitutional right of all citizens, the Applicant inclusive, to
freedom and liberty inclusive of the right to contractual engagement
in economics and business undertakings, without let or hindrance
except in accordance with law, rule of law, the extant Constitution
of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the African Charter on
Peoples’ and Human Rights” and the sixth relief sought by the
Applicant, to wit: “An Order directing the 4th Respondent to
approach any competent civil court of law for ventilating his (sic)
grievances and seek redress for any monies she is claiming from
the Applicant, if she feels she has any legitimate cause of action
JUDGMENT IN ALH. MOHAMMED BELLO SAIDU V. THE NIGERIAN POLICE FORCE & 3 OTHERS Page 26
 instead of employing the apparatus of the Nigerian Police Force and
its officers to do money recovery”, are not grantable as they fall
outside the remit of fundamental rights enforcement proceedings. It
is accordingly refused.

This is the judgment of this Honourable Court delivered today, the 24 th of

March, 2021.

________________
HON. JUSTICE A. H. MUSA
JUDGE
24/03/2021
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE APPLICANT:
Emmanuel Ezeifedikwa Esq.

FOR THE RESPONDENTS

No legal representation.

JUDGMENT IN ALH. MOHAMMED BELLO SAIDU V. THE NIGERIAN POLICE FORCE & 3 OTHERS Page 27