In a significant reaffirmation of the protection of fundamental rights in Nigeria, the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, has delivered a landmark judgment condemning unlawful police conduct and awarding compensation to a victim of arbitrary arrest, detention, and property seizure.
The judgment, delivered by Hon. Justice Samirah Umar Bature, reinforces the constitutional safeguards guaranteed to every Nigerian citizen under the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).
The case arose from a Fundamental Rights Enforcement application in Motion No. FCT/HC/CV/3026/2025.
According to the facts presented before the court, the applicant had previously been contracted by a specialist hospital in Gusau, Zamfara State, to repair a medical imaging machine.
However, events took a troubling turn on April 3, 2024, when the applicant was allegedly lured from Abuja to Sabo Police Station in Kaduna under false pretences.
Upon arrival, he was reportedly arrested without a warrant and subsequently assaulted by officers of the Zamfara State Police Command led by CSP Sunday Aireguame.
The applicant told the court that his red Peugeot 307 vehicle, along with cash, ATM cards, tools, and other personal belongings, was seized without explanation or inventory.
He further stated that he was forcibly transported to Zamfara State, where he was detained for more than 72 hours without access to a lawyer or any member of his family.
During the detention, he alleged that he was subjected to physical torture, compelled to sign a false statement, and coerced into paying ₦230,000 inside a toilet before securing his release.
Despite his release, his vehicle remained in police custody, and an alleged attempt to transfer its ownership was later flagged.
Seeking redress for the violation of his constitutional rights, the applicant approached the High Court through a Motion on Notice dated August 4, 2025, asking the court to declare the actions of the respondents unconstitutional and to award damages.
The application was moved and argued before the court by Ehi Barnabas Henry, Esq., who appeared alongside D. D. Ibrahim.
They urged the court to find that the actions of the respondents amounted to clear violations of the applicant’s rights to dignity, personal liberty, freedom of movement, and protection from unlawful deprivation of property.
In its judgment, the court carefully examined the affidavit evidence and exhibits placed before it and held that the applicant had established his claims on the balance of probabilities.
The court found that the applicant was arrested and detained unlawfully without warrant or lawful justification. The physical abuse and coercion he suffered amounted to a violation of his right to dignity of the human person.
His detention for over 72 hours without being brought before a court breached his right to personal liberty.
The seizure and continued detention of his vehicle constituted an unlawful deprivation of property.
- After resolving the issues in favour of the applicant, the court granted several reliefs, including a declaration that the arrest, detention, and physical abuse of the applicant were unlawful and unconstitutional;
- a declaration that the seizure and continued detention of the applicant’s Peugeot 307 vehicle violated his constitutional right to property; an order directing the immediate release of the vehicle and all personal belongings contained in it;
- an order compelling the respondents to issue a public apology in a national newspaper; and an award of ₦20,000,000 as general and exemplary damages against the respondents jointly and severally for the violation of the applicant’s fundamental rights.
This judgment serves as an important reminder that law enforcement authorities must operate strictly within the bounds of the Constitution and the law.
Arbitrary arrests, unlawful detention, torture, and illegal seizure of property remain serious violations of fundamental rights and can attract judicial sanction.
The decision also highlights the importance of the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules, which provide a swift avenue for citizens to seek redress where their constitutional rights are violated.
For legal practitioners and human rights advocates, the case underscores the judiciary’s continuing role as a guardian of civil liberties and the rule of law.
Ultimately, the judgment stands as a clear message that constitutional rights are not mere ideals but enforceable protections, and when violated, the courts remain ready to provide a remedy.
