Does Police Invitation and Detention For The Purpose Of Investigation Amounts To An Infringement Of Fundamental Rights?

It is trite position of the law that fundamental rights are sacrosanct and immutable to the extent of the immutability of the Constitution itself. However, as a principle of law, fundamental rights accruing to human persons, although sacrosanct, is not absolute. Simpliciter, fundamental rights contained and enlisted under the Chapter IV (sections 33 — 44) of the Nigerian 1999 Constitution (as amended) are not absolute in their enforcement. There are limitations for their enforcement; and the limitations are as well inserted in the sections creating and giving life to these rights.

By implication, fundamental right including the right to freedom of movement and liberty which every person is entitled to is limited. One of its limitation is the power of the Police to question or detain a person for a limited time in furtherance of its duty to prevent and prosecute crimes as part of the duty entrusted on the Police agency vide section 4 of the Police Act, 2021. This position was equally maintained by learned wise-men of the Court of Appeal in the very recent case of ISIAKA ADEBOYE & ORS v. SAHEETO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED & ORS (2019) LCN/12546 (CA) — an appeal involving three Appellants & three Respondents.

The fact of the case is that the 2nd and 3rd Respondents (one ASP & the C.O.P respectively), acting upon a petition dated 17th June, 2013, invited the 1st and 3rd Appellants to the SCID Panti, Yaba, as part of their investigation into the alleged theft of a car and money belonging to the 1st Respondent by the 2nd Appellant. The 2nd Appellant was subsequently invited and it turned out that the 2nd Appellant was not the Driver of the 1st Respondent who allegedly committed the offence. Acting on the belief that the invitation, arrest & detention for the investigation constitutes a breach of their fundamental rights, the Appellants instituted three different fundamental right actions in the lower Court against the Respondents, which were heard in a consolidated manner (jointly). The trial Court, haven dismissed the Appellants' claim on the 10th of February, 2015, the Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal vide a Notice of Appeal dated and filed on 27th April, 2015.

From the fact, it was understood that the 2nd Appellant, although was arrested and detained on the basis of the said petition. Subsequently, the suspicion against the 2nd Appellant was however found to be untrue. Thus, among the issues distilled and argued in the Appeal is as to the lawfulness of such an arrest of the Appellants by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents. The grouse of the Appellants against the Respondents in this instance is basically as to the illegality of their arrest.

In stating its position, the Court also take its view of the question of the extent of the powers of the police to effect an arrest and detention of persons reasonably suspected of having committed a criminal offence. The Court stated that:

The powers of the Nigerian Police Force, with regards to crime prevention, detection and prosecution, are very wide indeed, to the extent that the Nigerian Police force has the power to detain and question anyone reasonably suspected to have committed or connected to the commission of a crime, within a limited time frame and in a humane and responsible manner.

The Court further emphatically stressed that “[t]he key consideration cum condition precedent to determining whether the detention in this appeal is a breach of Appellants fundamental rights is not the truth of the allegations; its reasonableness”.

Hence, the Court, in answering the poser cum argument of the Appellants held thus:

Now adverting my mind once again to the facts of the case, I do not think the actions of the Respondents particularly the 2nd & 3rd Respondents in inviting and detaining the Appellants for the purposes of investigating the allegation before them do in anyway violates the Appellants right to personal liberty as the actions of the Respondents was in tune with their powers of investigation of crimes. As I mentioned earlier, the right to personal liberty under Section 35 of the 1999 Constitution as amended is not absolute. — Jamiu Yammama Tukur, JCA.

The Court further placed its reliance on the same Section 35 (1) (c) of the grundnorm (the 1999 Constitution, as amended) where the Court held that “[t]he very same grundnorm which provides for the protection of the Appellants fundamental right to liberty and freedom of movement, also limited the enjoyment of those rights under certain circumstance…”.

 

 

By:

Qosim Muhibudeen A.

(Deputy Chief Registrar, Solace Chambers —BUK).