A Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered the Nigerian
Army and First City Monument Bank to pay Major Akeem Oseni N416,650,000 damages
for wrongful conviction and denial of access to funds, among other violations.
Justice G.K. Olotu of the Federal High Court in Abuja
gave the order in a judgment delivered on October 28, and whose Certified True
Copy was obtained on Thursday.
The applicant (Oseni) had sued the Nigeria Army and
First City Monument Bank as first and second respondents respectively in a suit
marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1104/2021, for placing his account on a post-no-debit from
February 2020.
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,” among others.
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.
Aggrieved, he dragged the Army and his bank to court.
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 held.
Comments:
Leave a Reply