Justice Alexander Owoeye of a Federal High Court, Lagos, has reaffirmed several legal authorites which declared that the police, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and other security agencies have no legal power to meddle in any civil disputes.
Justice Owoeye made the above affirmation while delivering judgment in a fundamental rights enforcement suit marked FHC/L/CS/945/202, filed by a company, Tips Nigeria Limited and its alter ego, Otunba Kunle Akeushola against the EFCC and three others.
Others in the suit are: Michael Wetkas (ACE 2); Mr. Erunhunomase Nelson and Mrs. Esther Folake Nelson.
The applicants, Tips Nigeria Limited and Otunba Akeushola through their lawyer, A. G. Giwa-Amu, have dragged all the respondents before the court over transaction that arose from land matter.
Specifically, the applicants asked against the respondents for the following reliefs: “a declaration that the harassment and continue harassment of the Applicants by the men of the 1st Respondent, and 2nd Respondent on the instigation by 3rd and 4th Respondents, is a gross violation and breached of the Applicants’ fundamental rights to personal liberty and freedom of movement as guaranteed under Section 34, 35 and 41 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) 2011.
“An order of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents either by themselves, or their officers, servants, agents, privies and otherwise howsoever acting for them, from harassing and/or further harassing and molesting or in any manner infringing the fundamental rights of the Applicants in the name and style of conducting EFCC investigation at the instance of the 3rd Respondent on issues or all other issues incidental thereto relating to or connected with One (1) Plot of land issue between the Applicants and 3rd & 4th Respondents.
“N10 million being damages for harassment, intimidation of the Applicants in breach of the Applicants’ Fundamental Human Right as enshrined in the Sections 34, 35 and 41 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) 2011.”
But the EFCC through its lawyers, file both preliminary objections, wherein it challenged the court’s jurisdiction in entertaining the suit.
In the same vein, Mr. and Mrs. Nelson through their lawyer, Kolapo Gbadamosi, equally in their preliminary objections challenged the court’s jurisdiction in entertaining the suit.
Delivering judgment in the suit, Justice Owoeye, first dismissed the preliminary objections filed by all the respondents challenging the jurisdiction of the court to hear and determine the suit.
Upon dismissal of the respondents’ preliminary objections. The judge after legally ex-rayed all the submissions of parties and the plethoras of authorites cited, and after citing several judicial authorities which restrained EFCC and other security agencies from interfering with civil disputes held that: “The effect of the foregoing settled position of the law is that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, the instant 1st Respondent and indeed, all law enforcement agencies are precluded by law from dabbling into disputes arising from civil disputes and matters of contract or that touching on land as in the instant case.
“Having read Exhibit EFCC 1, the 1st and 2nd respondents ought to have been bold enough to advise the 3rd and 4th respondents to seek a resolution of their grievance in Court instead of issuing a letter of invitation to the Applicants. The letter of Invitation issued to the Applicants is ultra vires the statutory powers conferred on the 1st Respondent and I so hold.”
In determined the applicants’ suit against the respondents, Justice Owoeye held that: “Section 46 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) Provisions of the special jurisdiction of the high Court in the following terms: “Section 46(1) Any person who alleges that any of the provisions of this chapter has been is being or likely to be contravened in any state in relation to him may apply to a High Court in that State for redress.
“It makes no difference where the contravention or threat of contravention is coming from. No person or body of persons, natural or legal, or institution is exempt from the above provision.
“The Applicants are right to seek redress in this Court in relation to the likelihood of violation of their fundamental rights by the 1st-4th Respondent. They are entitled to the declaratory reliefs sought by them.
“On the whole, Judgment is hereby entered in favour of the Applicants. I hereby order as follows: “it is declared that the harassment and continued harassment of the Applicants by men of the 1st Respondent on the instigation by 3rd and 4th respondents is a gross Violation and an act likely to infringe upon the Applicants’ fundamental rights to personal liberty. arid freedom of movement as guaranteed under Sections 34, 35, and 41 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).
“All other reliefs sought by the Applicants are refused.
“Parties shall bear their respective costs.”
