By SHINA OGUNBIYI-JOSEPH

The Federal High Court, Abuja, in its judgement on 28th October, 2024 awarded sum of four hundred and sixteen million, six hundred and fifty thousand naira (#416,650,000.00) only as general and exemplary damages against the Nigerian Army and FCMB in SUIT NO: FHC/ABJ/CS/1104/2021, Major Akeem Aderogba Oseni v Nigerian Army and FCMB.

This judgment is in respect of Applicant’s application dated 13th September, 2021 and filed on 22nd September, 2021 for the enforcement of the Applicant’s fundamental Rights. The specific reliefs sought by the Applicant are as follows:
A declaration that the act of the 2nd Respondent placing the personal account of the Applicant domiciled at First Monument Bank PLC (FCMB), with account number 2656152013 on a post-no-debit (PND) from February 2020, till date on directives of the 1st Respondent, without a valid Court Order nor affording the Applicant adequate time and facility to be heard is illegal, wrongful, unlawful and constitute a blatant.

The applicant had in a fundamental human rights suit dated September 13, 2021, and filed on September 22, 2021, sought 13 reliefs among which are:

“A declaration that the act of the second respondent (FCMB) placing the personal account of the applicant domiciled at First City Monument Bank, with account number 2656152XXX on post-no-debit from February 2020, till date on the directives of the first respondent (Nigerian Army), without a valid court order, nor affording the applicant adequate time and facility to be heard, is illegal, wrongful, unlawful, and constitutes a blatant violation of the applicant’s fundamental rights to a fair hearing, the presumption of innocence, rights to own moveable and immovable property anywhere in Nigeria as enshrined in sections 36 (1), 36 (5), 43 and 44 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as altered; sections 1 (1) and (2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, and articles 2, 3 (2), 4 and 7 (2) of the African charter on human and peoples’ rights (Ratification and Enforcement) ACT Cap A9 laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004;

“A declaration that the dehumanisation of the applicant by the operatives of the 1st respondent, while in their custody for 10 months is illegal, wrongful, unlawful and constitutes a blatant violation of his fundamental human rights as enshrined in sections 35 (1), (3), (4), 37 and 41 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as altered, sections 1 (1), (2), and 30 (1), (2), 32 (1) (2) and (3) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, and Articles 6 and 12 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) act cap A9 laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004;

“A declaration that the continuous denial of the applicant access to his funds is a blatant disregard of his constitutional provision to own moveable and immoveable property, as there was no court order granted to that regard, therefore illegal, wrongful, unlawful and constitutes a blatant violation of the applicant’s fundamental rights as enshrined in sections 35 (1), (3), (41) (1), and (43), of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as altered, and sections 1 (1), (2) and 30 (1), (2) 32 (1), (2) 32 (1), (2) and (3), of the Administration of Criminal Justice act, 2015, and articles 6 and 12 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ rights (ratification and enforcement) act cap A9 laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004,

“A declaration that the dehumanization of the Applicant by placing him on handcuffs and leg chains from 11th February, 2020 to 9th 2020 while in custody by the operatives of the 1st Respondent without complying with the provisions of Section 293(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, regulating the remand of a suspect, is illegal, unlawful, null and void and of no effect whatsoever,” among others in the 65-page judgement delivered.

The applicant’s account was placed on PND following a manslaughter investigation that allegedly took place in his office.

The applicant who was a field officer the week an attempted jail break occurred, was asked alongside other officers to take out the soldier, drill and relocate him to a separate detention facility within the cantonment.

The soldier was afterwards handed over to the applicant to drill, frog jump, forward roll and counsel which he did as instructed.

Later that day, the applicant was told that the soldier was struggling with his leg cuff. He was rushed to the defence medical headquarters where he was confirmed dead after arrival.

The applicant was court-martialed by the general court-martial panel of the Army and pronounced guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to 10 years in prison which he is currently serving.

Upon his imprisonment, his account was placed on PND restraining him from accessing money for his family.

The judge, in his judgment on the suit, held that “The evidence before the court shows that respondents acted arbitrarily and over their powers in their dealings with the applicant, particularly in these respects:

“The joint action of the respondents to place the personal account of the applicant on a Post No Debit since February 2020 till date, without a valid court order or affording the applicant the right to be heard as constitutionally guaranteed.

“The action of the first respondent to conduct a search in a Gestapo manner and remove cash and valuables from the Applicant’s private apartment without a valid search warrant.

“The dehumanising treatment of placing the applicant on handcuff and leg chain while in the custody of the 1st Respondent before the confirmation of his sentence by the Army Council,

“Failure of the first respondent to grant bail to the applicant within 24 hours or 48 hours of his arrest/detention pending confirmation of his sentence by the Army Council.”

Speaking further, the judge noted that the first and second Respondents connived and conspired to illegally freeze the applicant’s account.

“The first respondent usurped the power of the court to order a freezing of the account by instructing the second respondent to freeze the applicant’s account. Ironically, the applicant’s finance was not implicated in the investigation of the case of manslaughter against him.

“And the second respondent knowing better, either for fear of the first respondent or for reasons best known to it obeyed the first respondent’s instructions and froze the applicant’s account. Whatever angle their conducts are viewed from, they acted clearly outside their powers.

“They probably thought that they were above the law. But the principle of exemplary damages will now tell them and show them that they are not above the law and that the law is no respect for anyone who breaks it. It was a big stick which it used and will now use to correct the abusive and excessive tendencies of the respondents.

“The first respondent also acted more than its powers in dehumanising the applicant.

“The applicant claimed the sum of N2billion award, of general and exemplary damages, I award N100m as general damages and N300m as exemplary damages against the respondents jointly and severally in favour of the applicant”, Justice Olotu concluded.