Court Dismisses Freight Agent’s N700m Right Suit Against NDLEA
Justice Friday Ogazi of a Lagos Federal High Court, has dismissed a fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by a freight agent, Oladele Toyin Olowokudejo, against the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA), for lacking in merit.
Oladele had instituted the suit numbered FHC/L/CS/1200/2023, against the NDLEA, it’s Chairman/ Chief Executive Officer and it’s Commandant at Murtala Muhammud International Airport Command, NAHCO, Ikeja, Lagos.
Parts of the reliefs sought by the freight agent, through his lawyers led by Dr. Adekunle Ojo (SAN), includes: “a declaration that arrest, continued detention, prolonged deprivation, physical and mental torture, interrogations, harassments, threats, intimidations coercion, disturbances, victimizing shaming and dehumanization of the applicant by the respondents since June 7, 2023 till date, are oppressive, illegal and constitute a flagrant breach Of the Applicant’s constitutionally guaranteed Fundamental Rights to life, personal liberty.
“A declaration that the torture and the inhuman and degrading treatment the applicant is subjected to in the custody of the Respondent and their agents is illegal, unlawful and an infringement of the Applicant’s Fundamental Human Rights.
“A declaration that announcing the applicant in the Press without giving him right to fair hearing nor establishing a prima facie case against him is illegal, unlawful and an infringement on his fundamental rights.
“An order directing the respondents to tender a Public apology to the Applicant for the unlawful arrest and unlawful detention; and the apology to be published in three National Newspaper to wit: Punch, The Nation, Vanguard.
“An order of the court directing the respondent to pay him the sum of N700 million, for the unlawful violation of his rights as provided for in Sections 33, 34 and 35 of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria.
“An order restraining the respondents, their agents, servants, privies or anyone acting on their behalf from further harassing, detaining, intimidating, arresting the applicant.”
The freight agent’s motion was pursuant to pursuant to Order II Rule 3 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009 hereinafter referred to as FREP Rules, 2009, was supported the motion with a 21 paragraph-affidavit deposed to by his wife of the Applicant, Mrs. Deborah Tolulope Olowokudejo, and a written address with documentary exhibits.
During the trial of the case, the freight agent had informed the court that he was arrested at Murtala Mohammed International Airport (MMIA) on June 7, 2023, while acting as Commission Agent to Oseda Organic Limited in exportation of Consignments of African soap and Butterfly Powder. Adding that in the course of searching the consignments being exported to England, it was found to contained dried weeds which proved to be 3.2kg of Cannabis Sativa.
He stated that though, the prohibited substance was in his possession, but claims that he was not part of the alleged plan to export the cannabis out of Nigeria, as it was found in the consignment given to him by Oseda Organic Limited and that was the first time he was transacting business with the company.
He also told the court that as a result of his arrest and subsequent detention, he suffered mental agony, physical deterioration, high fever, excessive vomiting, acute diarrhoea and high blood pressure without any health care in the cell. And that the NDLEA did not allow him access to medical practitioner.
He further told the court that he was subjected to series of intimidation harassment, mental and other forms of torture and other inhuman treatments, deprivation of his personal liberty, being coerced and intimidated to admit commission of the offence, among others by agents and staff of the NDLEA.
Defending the suit, NDLEA through its lawyer, Mr. Abu Ibrahim, filed a 12 paragraphs counter-affidavit deposed to by one Nnanna Liamezie, wherein the anti-narcotics agency urged the court to dismiss the suit with a substantial cost.
Specifically, NDLEA confirmed that the freight agent was arrested on June 7, 2023 following receipt of intelligence information that a consignment of cannabis sativa was to be exported from NAHCO export shed to United Kingdom.
The agency also told the court that his was arrested for possession of Cannabis Sativa, an illicit substance, was due to his failure to co-operate with investigators by providing details of the Sender of the consignment to assist in the arrest of the Sender.
The anti-narcotics agency also justified the arrest and detention of the applicant, which it said it was for the purpose of investigation, upon reasonable suspicion of commission of a criminal offence.
In urging the court to dismiss the suit, NDLEA lawyer, Mr. Abu formulated one issue for determination, which was: “whether in light of the facts and circumstances of the application, the applicant has established a case of infringement of their fundamental Rights against the the agency, to warrant the grant of the reliefs sought in this application.”
Delivering judgment in the suit, Justice Ogazi, after analyzing submissions of the parties and after citing plethoras of authorites, upheld the the issue formulated by the NDLEA.
In the final analysis of the case, Justice Ogazi held that: “From the above provision, it is obvious in the facts and circumstance of this case that the arrest of the applicant was exercised in accordance with the power of NDLEA under the law. In the fact and circumstance of this case, I am of the view that there was not only a reasonable suspicion of the applicant having committed an offence, there is a prima facie case of him having committed an offence……
“it note that the applicant was detained for up to 15 days; in the argument of the applicant, this exceeds the 48 hours permitted under the Constitution and thus renders the detention unlawful. As inspiring as that argument may sound, I need to point out that the said period of 48 hours is not absolute. It is qualified by the Constitution. It is within the discretion of the Court to determine whether the period in each case is reasonable or not….
“I am of the view that in the fact and circumstance of this case, I am bound by the decision of the Court of Appeal on the issue of detention bound 48 hours. I am of the view that strict adherence to 48 hours limitation for detention may in some circumstances work against effectiveness in investigation of some offences such as narcotic or drug related offences which requires expert evidence before conclusion of investigation….
“lt has been earlier established by our Courts that Fundamental Human Right cannot be used as a refuge for a suspect to shield himself from investigation or prosecution.
“Apart from the arrest and detention for more than 48 hours which is admitted, no other allegation is admitted. The applicant’s allegation of torture, coerced intimidation to admit commission of alleged Offence, lack of access to counsel etc are denied by the Respondent. The onus of proof of those allegations is still placed on the Applicant. I have considered those sundry allegations of breach Of Fundamental Right.”
On the allegation of case of torture and the judge held that: “I hold that there is no proof case of torture. Infact, the particulars of torture meted out on him were not specified and none proved to the satisfaction of this Court by the Applicant.”
On the applicant’s allegation of lack of access to his lawyer, coerced intimidation to admit commission of the alleged offence and of being forced to write statements without any opportunity of consulting with any lawyer, “it is in my view debunked by the content of Exhibit NDLEA 1 Suspect’s Statement dated 8/06/2023 and suspect’s additional statement dated 13/06/2024 indicates that the Statements were made in the presence of his lawyer Barrister Benson Ndakara and it was attested that the Statement was voluntarily made.
“There is also the allegation of publication of the picture of the applicant in National Newspapers and social media platforms by the Respondent binding him as a hard drug dealer. This is also not proven as there is no evidence of such newspaper publication authored by the respondent. Though the Applicant exhibited a social media publication as Exhibit A annexed to the applicant’ s further affidavit, the said publication was not in the Official social media platform of the Respondents but on that of a Private blogger Lindalkejiblogofficial; a private blogger not under the Control of the Respondent.
“I am also not convinced by the Applicant’s allegation of extreme ill health as a result of his detention, have seen Exhibit 2 – doctor’s report from G. kamza Medical Centre dated 26th February 2024, wherein it is recorded that the Applicant was diagnose with malaria, etheric fever, gastroenteritis and High blood pressure on 23rd of July 2023.
“I am however of the view that the Doctor’s report is procured specially for this proceeding in view of the fact that it was prepared long after the filing and service of the Respondent’s counter-affidavit. By section 83 (3) of the Evidence Act, 2011, Court may not given much credence to a document prepared in anticipation of proceedings or after commencement of proceedings.
“In the final analysis, I hold that the Applicant has not been able to prove the allegations of infringement of his fundamental right and thus not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed. Accordingly, this case is dismissed. I make no order as to cost.”
