Court throws out N50m rights action against AIG Interpol, others

IGP EGBETOKUN 

A Federal High Court, Ikoyi, Lagos, presided over by Justice Tijjani Ringim, has thrown out a fundamental rights suit instituted by a businessman, Emeka Solomon Nwadiogbu, against the Assistant Inspector-General of Police (AIG) in charge of Interpol and Mr Martins Nwogoh, a Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP).

Momoh Christopher, who is the third respondent in the suit, also benefited from the court’s decision.

The judge arrived at the decision as a result of the failure of the businessman to join the Nigeria Police Force (NPF) in the suit.

It would be recalled that Nwadiogbu had through his counsel, Eubena Amedu, dragged the police officers and Mr Christopher to court over an alleged breach of his fundamental rights in a suit designated FHC/L/CS/234/2022.

He had consequently prayed to the judge for the following reliefs: 

“A declaration that the invitation of the applicant by the first and second respondents at the behest of the third respondent over a purely civil dispute and for the purposes of helping the said third respondent to recover money allegedly owed him by the applicant, is illegal, unconstitutional, null, void and constitutes gross violation of applicant's fundamental rights as enshrined in Sections 34(1) (a) and 35 of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended: Articles 2, 5 and 6 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap 10, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990. 

“A declaration that the first and second respondents, not being a court within the meaning of Section 6 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended, cannot adjudicate on any civil dispute and/or any dispute between the applicant and the third respondent. 

“An order of the court restraining the first and second respondents jointly and severally or whether by the first respondent itself, its officers, agents, servants, privies or acting through any persons howsoever, including the second respondent, from further inviting, harassing, humiliating, embarrassing, threatening to arrest and detain or arresting and/or detaining the applicant based on a baseless, false and unfounded allegation contained in a petition lodged by the third respondent. 

“An order of the court restraining the respondents from disturbing or further disturbing, interfering or further interfering, disrupting or further disrupting the businesses of the applicant. 

“N50 million, as exemplary damages against the respondents jointly and severally for the harassment, constant threat and disruption of the business of Emilinks Limited, by touts regularly sent to Emilinks Limited by the third respondent.”

However, in their 28 paragraphs counter affidavit filed by their counsel, Morufu Animashaun, the police officers had urged the court to dismiss the application for being frivolous, incomplete and lacking in merit.

While knocking almost all the averments in the applicant's affidavit, Animashaun notified the court that there was never a time the applicant was threatened or maltreated, adding that the applicant was only invited over the petition written against him. 

The lawyer further added that by the power of Section 4 of the Police Act and other authorities, the Nigeria Police and its agents have the right to investigate any petition and invite anyone for investigation on the allegations contained in the petition.

Even, counsel for the third respondent, Fidelis Akra, in his submission, stated that the suit that omitted the Nigerian Police Force (NPF) as a party, and being the parent of the agents, first and second respondents, is a non-starter and liable to be dismissed.

Handing down his judgment, Justice Ringim declared that, “Since the competence of the Originating Motion is an issue, I feel obliged to give this issue the priority it deserves, lest I assume jurisdiction to try this matter in vain. 

“While the argument of the 3rd respondent's counsel was clearly on point as to whether the absence of the Nigerian Police Force (NPF) as a party makes the instant case liable to dismissal; the counter-argument of the learned counsel to the applicant is obscure as to which of the party is an agent and of whom and to what extent did the said agent exceed his authority and in what form and manner and to what extent does reliefs 1-4 affect the said agent. 

“In my humble view, what appears to me to be the issue is whether the instant suit can subsist without the NPF being made a party. 

“The law is trite that in any action against police officers in their official capacity, the NPF, as a statutory body, and who will be vicariously liable for its operatives’ action, is a necessary party whose joinder is non-negotiable and the absence of whom renders an action incompetent and liable to be struck out.

“In this instant case, and within the context of the reliefs 1-5 which the applicant sought against the first and second respondents, the NPF, i.e. the first and second respondents’ statutory principal, will obviously be vicariously liable since the first and second respondents appeared to have been sued in their official capacity. The absence of the NPF, a necessary party, makes the instant action incompetent, and this I so hold.

“This action is accordingly struck out for its incompetence.”

All rights reserved. This material and other digital volumes on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express written permission from THE NEWS ACCELERATOR NETWORK.

For advert placement, please contact thenewsacceleratornetwork@gmail.com or 08033599492. For news coverage or press releases, call 08022717838.