KEY POINTS
-
Appeal Court upholds ₦12m compensation for Monday Ubani’s unlawful detention.
-
EFCC ordered to pay an additional ₦300,000 in costs.
-
Ruling reinforces limits on police and anti-graft agencies’ powers.
The Court of Appeal in Abuja has upheld a ₦12 million compensation award against the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, over the unlawful detention of human rights lawyer Dr Monday Ubani, SAN, for 21 days in 2019. The appellate court dismissed the anti-graft agency’s appeal against the judgment and also ordered it to pay ₦300,000 in legal costs.
The decision reinforces the principle that law enforcement agencies must respect citizens’ fundamental rights and comply with court orders when carrying out investigations.
EFCC detained lawyer for 21 days
Ubani’s detention followed his involvement in securing administrative bail for a client who was accused of jumping bail.
The EFCC subsequently detained the lawyer for 21 days in 2019. According to the account of the case, a court had ordered the commission to either release him conditionally or charge him with an alleged offence.
The commission allegedly failed to comply with the order, prompting Ubani to seek legal redress over the violation of his fundamental rights.
His lawyer, Chief Professor Mike Ozekhome, SAN, instituted a fundamental rights enforcement suit on his behalf, challenging the legality of the detention.
High Court awarded ₦12m compensation
On January 5, 2022, the Federal Capital Territory High Court in Abuja, presided over by Justice Sylvanus Oriji, ruled in Ubani’s favour.
The court awarded him ₦12 million in compensation over his unlawful detention.
Dissatisfied with the decision, the EFCC appealed to the Court of Appeal, challenging both the jurisdiction of the lower court to hear the case and the amount awarded as compensation.
However, the appellate court rejected the commission’s arguments and upheld the lower court’s judgment.
It also awarded an additional ₦300,000 in costs against the EFCC.
Court stresses limits of EFCC’s powers
According to the account of the judgment, the Court of Appeal held that the compensation awarded to Ubani was justified.
The decision also emphasised that the EFCC’s investigative powers do not give it the authority to detain individuals arbitrarily or disregard orders issued by a court.
Although law enforcement agencies have the responsibility to investigate suspected crimes, their actions must remain within the limits of the law and the Constitution.
The ruling therefore serves as a reminder that agencies cannot rely on their investigative responsibilities to justify unlawful restrictions on personal liberty.
Judgment reinforces citizens’ fundamental rights
The case highlights the legal protections available to individuals who believe their rights have been violated by law enforcement agencies.
Under Nigeria’s constitutional framework, citizens are entitled to personal liberty and can approach the courts when they believe they have been unlawfully detained.
The ruling also demonstrates that law enforcement agencies may face financial consequences when courts establish that their actions have violated those rights.
For Ubani, the decision upholds the compensation awarded by the lower court after his 21-day detention.
Case raises questions about lawyers acting as sureties
The circumstances surrounding Ubani’s detention also draw attention to the responsibilities of lawyers who stand as sureties for clients facing criminal allegations.
Administrative bail allows a suspect to be released under conditions set by an investigating agency, while a surety may undertake certain responsibilities to help secure the suspect’s release.
However, a client’s alleged failure to meet bail conditions does not automatically justify the unlawful detention of the lawyer who helped secure the bail.
The appellate court’s decision underscores the distinction between legitimate investigations and actions that violate personal liberty.
The judgment further reinforces the principle that government agencies must remain accountable to the courts and operate within the law, regardless of the nature of the allegations they are investigating.
