Sanusi gets N50million judgement against FG

A Lagos Federal High Court  today ordered the Federal government and its agents to pay the sum of N50million to the former Governor of Central Bank of Nigeria,Mallam Sanusi Lamido Sanusi as exemplary damages for the illegal detention and seizure of the  international passport of the fiery banker.Justice Ibrahim Buba ,who gave the verdict in […]

A Lagos Federal High Court  today ordered the Federal government and its agents to pay the sum of N50million to the former Governor of Central Bank of Nigeria,Mallam Sanusi Lamido Sanusi as exemplary damages for the illegal detention and seizure of the  international passport of the fiery banker.
Justice Ibrahim Buba ,who gave the verdict in the enforcement suit  filed by Sanusi,also ordered the State Security Service and the police to  instantly release the  his passport.
He also ordered the respondents to tender an unreserved public apology to Sanusi for his unlawful arrest,harassment,intimidation and seizure of his passport.

Justice Buba dismissed a preliminary objection filed by Dr Fabian Ajogwu (SAN) on behalf of the AGF, challenging the jurisdiction of the court to hear the suit,saying that the provisions of sections 11 of the Labour Act, cannot take away the jurisdiction bestowed on the FHC by the Constitution.

He held that the provisions of sections 251 of the Constitution vest jurisdiction of the FHC, to entertain matters touching on enforcement of fundamental human rights.

According to him, the applicant had brought the suit under the provisions of chapter 4 of the constitution seeking an enforcement of his rights, and so, is not a dispute relating to his terms of employment.

“The averment by respondent that the matter is labour related is far from the truth; the first respondent is trying to set up another case for the applicant; It is a case of “shifting the goal post” and making a case for the applicant.

“The facts deposed in the applicant’s originating summons and his affidavit, speaks for itself; it is a suit for enforcement of his fundamental right which is recognisable by the federal high court.

“The court allows any person who perceives that his rights are likely to be infringed on, to approach the court for redress” he said

The court therefore dismissed the preliminary objection of the AGF, holding that the court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the applicant’s suit.

In his verdict on the main suit, he held that from the totality of averments in the applicant’s originating summons, there is no doubt that the respondents had failed to answer all the questions raised.

He held that the first and third respondents, presented conflicting averments in their counter affidavits, which shows that they are not on the same page on the issue, and had acted in bad faith.

The averment of the second respondent is frugal, as it stated clearly that they had not been briefed by anyone to investigate or arrest the applicant.

“The first respondent laboured to submit that the applicant is not entitled to a grant of perpetual injunction, but this court is of the opinion that for every infraction, the applicant is entitled to a relief.

“This court believes that the action of the respondents in this suit, deserves condemnation and exemplary damages.

“This court has no doubt that the applicant has made out his case against the respondents, and so, resolve all the issues in favour of the applicant; for the avoidance of doubt, the court makes the following declaratory order:

“A declaration that the first respondent acting through the officers of the third respondent or its privies, does not have any power to forcefully withdraw and keep the passport of the applicant for any reason whatsoever.

“A declaration that the respondent do not have any power to forcefully withdraw and seize the passport of the applicant, without compliance with section 5 (1) of the Passport Miscellanous Provisions Act 2004.

“A declaration that the forceful seizure and detention of applicant’s passport, is an unlawful violation of his right to freedom of movement, enshrined in section 35 of the 1999 Constitution and article 12 of the Charter on Human and Peoples Right Act.

“A declaration that the conduct of respondent acting through the officers of the SSS, in forcefully arresting the applicant without due allegation or suspicion of a crime, is an unlawful violation of his right to personal liberty.

“An order of this court is hereby made restraining the respondent, their agents, privies or any other law enforcement agency of the respondents, from further interfering, harassing or infringing on the personal liberty of the applicant.

“An order for immediate release to the applicant of his international passport forcefully withdrawn and seized on Feb. 20, is hereby made.

“Having granted a restraining order, the order of perpetual injunction cannot be granted because for every infringement, the applicant has a right to come to court.

“An exemplary damages against the respondents jointly and severally is also awarded, in the sum of N50 million only.

“An order is also made, directing the respondent to make a public apology to the applicant for unlawful arrest, detention and harassment” Buba held.