A Lagos landlord, Alhaji Ahmed Olorunnimbe, has slammed a N5 million suit against the Inspector-General of Police (IGP), Usman Alkali, and three others, for allegedly breached his fundamental rights.
The businessman is also asking the court to make an order of perpetual restraining the respondents from further threatening, intimidating, arresting and detaining the him for no cause.
Joined as IGP’s co-respondents in the suit marked FHC/L/CS/1023/2021, and filed by his lawyer, Prince Chijioke Chinewubeze of Justice Temple (Crown Chambers), are; the Assistant Inspector-General of Police, Inspector Adeleke and Supol Odion respectively, all of ForceCID, Annex, Alagbon-Ikoyi, Lagos, as second, third and fourth respondents.
The applicant’s suit before the court is brought pursuant to Sectons 33, 35, 41 and 43 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria; Order 2, Rules 1 to 5 of the Fundamental rights (enforcement procedure) Rules, 2009 and under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction.
Apart from N5 million damages, the applicant is asking the court for a declaration that the respondents are not empowered to arrest, detain, question or prosecute any person for any purported or alleged civil wrong.
A declaration that it is illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional for the respondents to examine or interpret land title documents and decide questions of title to land. And a declaration that the constant harassment, intimidation and threats of shooting, arrest and detention of him and his family members by the respondents over the issue of Title to Land, is illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional and a breach of their fundamental rights.
The applicant also ask the court for an order of perpetual injunction restraining all the respondents from further threatening, intimidating, arresting and detaining for no cause.
The applicant, Alhaji Olorunnimbe, in an affidavit deposed to averred that th respondents aided some people who are trying to grab a parcel of land belonging to his family and which had sold before their involvement. Adding that the people the land was sold to was not available at the time the respondents got involved.
Olorunnimbe averred that the respondents invited, arrested and detained him and some of his family at the instance of the said alleged land grabbers and asked them to submit title documents for them to examine and decide the question of title to the land,
The deponent stated that sometime in June 2021, himself and other family members were invited for interview with the AIG, at 12 noon, though, he was ill and hospitalized, as at that time but other principal members of his family were there as early as 11. 00 a.m., and the third respondent, who is the investigating Police Officer (I.P.O) and the fourh respondent ignored them, but when the alleged land grabbers with their lawyer at 2.30 p.m, they were ushered in to see the AIG, while his family members were refused and denied access to the AIG.
The deponent further stated that when counsel to the alleged land grabbers, Jide Sotuminu, came out of AIG’s office, he boasted that his had been adjudged the owner of the land and proceeded to the land to change the gate and lock it, and the respondents did nothing. But when the person he sold the land to returned and asserted his right of ownership, the third and fourth respondents suddenly swung into action, calling, harassing, intimidating and threatening to arrest and detain him and his family for land grabbing.
The deponent stated that instead of advising Adewole Babatunde Adeleye to file a civil suit in a competent Court of law, if he claims to be the owner of the land, both the third and fourth respondents have been calling, harassing, intimidating and threatening my family and me. And that the third respondent once called him on phone and threatened to shoot him if I did not leave the land.
Owing to the above, the applicant claimed that himself and his family are now live in fear and are not able to move freely and do our businesses. And that unless the court intervenes, the respondents will continue with their illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional acts and breach of his fundamental rights.
However, while a date is yet to be fixed for the hearing of the matter, the respondents are yet to any response to the applicant’s suit.