Alleged Rights Violation: Court Strikes Out Osakwe Cecil’s Suit against DSS, Others

Wale Igbintade

Justice Muhammad Idris of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court, Abuja, has struck out a fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by the Director of Abeh Properties Management Limited, Osakwe Cecil, against the Department of State Security Service (DSS), the Inspector General of Police (IGP) and two others.

The judge held that the applicant in all his processes failed to provide ample evidence to substantiate the alleged claims of harassment, intimidation or threat by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents.

The applicant had in his originating motion dated February 1, 2022, sued Asabe Waziri, the  Department of State Security Service (DSS), the Inspector General of Police (IGP) and the Commissioner of Police, FCT, Abuja.

He asked the court for an order of perpetual injunction restraining the DSS, IGP, and Commissioner of Police FCT or their agents from further inviting and threatening to arrest and detain him or   interfere with applicant’s right to freedom of movement and right to property, on purely civil matter as in this case.

Besides, the applicant asked the court for an order directing the payment of the sum of N100 million as damages against the 1st respondent, and additional N50 million against the 3rd and 4th respondents respectively.

However, in his judgment, Justice Idris held that the law as clearly enshrined in Section 135-137 of the Evidence Act, laid down the fundamentals of such proof that he who asserts must prove.

The court held that there was nothing in the affidavit of the applicant suggesting the involvement of the 3rd and 4th respondents with specific references as regards the exact police division, dated time or even the officer (s) the case was assigned to, let alone a breach of his fundamental rights.

The court held that the applicant alleged he was intimidated, threatened and harassed with no lawful authority by officers of the 2nd-4th respondents facilitated by the 1st respondent, but he did not produce any evidence to support his allegation nor did he adduce any evidence to link the 1st respondent to the alleged act nor to show that the 2nd – 4th respondents was facilitated by the 1st respondent.

Justice Idris held that “A perusal of the applicant’s supporting affidavit would show that the allegation of facts in paragraphs 22, 24, 25, 29 and 30 of the applicant support affidavit does not relate to facts which directly affected the applicant personally, rather the deposed facts which were stated by one kola Adewale someone other than the applicant alleging injures to persons different from the Applicant, deponent are not before the court.

“The fundamental rights (enforcement procedure) Rule 2009 grants the applicant, some latitude in the enforcement of his rights.

“Nonetheless, it neither removes the general burden of proof imposed by law nor sacrifices the need to do justice to all concerned. Where an Applicant, as in the instant case, fails to discharge the burden imposed on him by law, the application will be dismissed irrespective of the emotions evoked.

“The court has a duty to carefully examine the reliefs claimed to ascertain what the claim is all about. From the first issue it is my humble view that same has not satisfied the requirements the same thing applied to the second issue raised by the applicant in this case.

“From the entire processes filed by the applicant a careful examination of the reliefs and issues for determination shows clearly that as can be seen in the reliefs was a breach on the applicant which can ordinarily be brought by a way of writ and which must be supported by evidence. 

“Thus the mere assertion of the violation of the applicant’s constitutional right does not necessary make the action maintainable by recourse to the fundamental right (enforcement procedure) rules the court has to examine reliefs closely to ascertain what the applicant claims.

“On a thorough scrutiny of the reliefs claimed it is my view that the principal claim if any has not been established therefore on the authority of Tukurs (supra) and other I have cited above this suit ought to have been initiated by a writ of summons where the parties could have filed and exchanged pleadings and evidence will be adduced and tested on the issues raised by the applicant, the law on the point as well settled is that only actions found on a breach of any of the fundamental right guaranteed in the constitution can be enforced under the rules.

“As a result of the failure in the part of the Applicant to sustain his 1st relief based on the fundamental Right (enforcement procedure) rules all other reliefs contain there in has failed. Accordingly based on the judicial authorities cited above this application is hereby struck out.”