Economic & Financial Crimes Commission V. Diamond Bank Plc & Ors (2019)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

SIDI DAUDA BAGE, J.S.C.

The application for enforcement of their fundamental rights filed by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents at the Federal High Court, Port-Harcourt Division, which led to this appeal, was prompted by a letter of invitation written by the Appellant Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) against the 2nd and 3rd Respondents on the issue of bank fraud and diversion of funds to other use:

FACTS OF THE CASE

The facts are that the 2nd & 3rd Respondents as the applicants at the lower Court were customers of the 1st Respondent bank since 1994. The relationship continued until 2003 when the 1st & 2nd Respondents suspected some discrepancies in the management of their account with the 1st Respondent. They engaged a banking consultant to investigate, and it was allegedly discovered that the 1st Respondent had illegally over charged the 1st & 2nd Respondents, in the management of their account, to a tune of N10,776, 921.19k refund of which they demanded. The 2nd & 3rd Respondents though not convinced, mutually agreed with the banking consultant that the matter be

PAGE 1

referred to the Chartered Institute of Bankers Committee on ethics and professionalism for arbitration. The matter was still pending there for arbitration when the 1st Respondent reported the 2nd & 3rd Respondents to the Financial Malpractices Investigation Unit of the Nigeria Police Force C.I.D Annex, Lagos. Consequently, policemen from Lagos came to Port Harcourt, arrested and detained the 3rd Respondent on 18th April, 2005. The 3rd Respondent was not granted bail until the policemen made him pay N2,000,000.00K to the 1st Respondent. The police further directed the 3rd Respondent to appear before them at Lagos on 10th May, 2005.

In the mean time the 2nd & 3rd Respondents approached the Federal High Court, Port Harcourt in suit no. FHC/PH/CS/385/2005 for leave to apply for enforcement of their fundamental rights. Exhibit ‘U’ contains the order granting the leave sought. The 2nd & 3rd Respondents, at paragraph 28 of their supporting affidavit, aver in the suit as follows:

“28. That the matter is still pending in the Federal High Court 2 and instead of waiting for the judgment of the Court 1st Respondent, in disregard of the

PAGE 2

Court, petitioned us again to EFCC on spurious claims when it is owing us just to use its right to intimidate us.”

The Appellant’s letter, Exhibit ‘V’, inviting the 3rd Respondent, as Managing Director of the 2nd Respondent, to appear in Lagos before her officer in charge of Bank Fraud, Team 3 on 11th December, 2007 states that “the Commission is investigating a case of Bank Fraud/Diversion of depositors fund reported by Diamond Bank Plc against you and your company.” The 1st Respondent letter of 14th March, 2005 to the 2nd & 3rd Respondents had demanded from the latter, payment of the outstanding sum of N44,137,700.76K plus interest thereon due from the latter to the former within 21 days failing which all necessary actions will be taken against the 2nd & 3rd Respondents to recover the sum without further notice. This letter is Exhibit ‘N’. Exhibit ‘T’ is the letter from the Nigeria Police Force CID Lagos inviting the 3rd Respondent to appear in Lagos on 10th May, 2005 and 3rd Respondent’s arrest and detention in April, 2005 have some nexus or connection with the 3rd Respondent’s letter Exhibit ‘N’.

The 1st Respondent Counter Affidavit seems

PAGE 3

to admit in paragraph 7 thereof that the 2nd &. 3rd Respondents “through their agents reported the matter to the Banker’s Subcommittee on ethics and professionalism” for arbitration and that “the committee – is yet to finally adjudicate on the matter.” Paragraph 6 of the said Counter Affidavit also admits that the Appellant went to lodge a complaint with the Financial Malpractice Investigation Unit of the Appellant which has the statutory duty to investigate transactions where Banks are being defrauded or the risk of the same exists. The 2nd & 3rd Respondents were merely invited for an Interview on routine investigation. Nobody has threatened to arrest them.

The Counter Affidavit of the Appellant avers that they (EFCC) are investigating the alleged fraud and obtaining by false pretences, not diversion of depositors’ funds, reported against the 2nd & 3rd Respondents to them through 1st Respondent letter of 27th October, 2007, Exhibit “EFCC A.” The letter, Exhibit ‘V’, inviting the 3rd Respondent for interview on 11th December, 2006 had triggered the 2nd & 3rd Respondents resolve to apply for leave to apply for the enforcement of their

PAGE 4

fundamental rights. Upon leave granted to the 2nd & 3rd Respondents to bring the application to enforce their fundamental rights, the 2nd & 3rd Respondents filed, vide the originating motion on 6th December, 2006, an application seeking orders enforcing their fundamental rights. They sought 3 reliefs, namely:-

(i) A declaration that the invitation of the 1st Applicant by the 2nd Respondent at the behest of the 1st Respondent is unlawful and a violation of his fundamental right to liberty and dignity of his person and a continuation of the harassment of the Applicants by the 1st Respondent in view of a pending action in this Court in suit no FHC/PH/CS/385/2005 between the Applicants and Diamond Bank Limited and 4 ors.

(ii) A declaration that the 2nd Respondent by the enabling Act establishing it, lacks the statutory power to function as a debt collector on behalf of the 1st Respondent or anybody for that matter in matters of commercial contract.

(iii) An order of Court restraining the Respondents from disturbing or interfering with the right to liberty of the 1st Applicant through further threat of invitation, arrest, detention,

5

intimidation and unnecessary interrogation or in any other way or manner whatsoever.”

The parties were heard on the 2nd & 3rd Respondents’ application on 19th January, 2007. The learned trial Judge in his Ruling delivered on 23rd January, 2007 dismissed the application.

Dissatisfied with the ruling of the Federal High Court, the 2nd & 3rd Respondents appealed against that decision. The lower Court in its judgment dated 3rd March, 2011 allowed the appeal and granted all the reliefs.

It is against the decision of the Court of Appeal above, that the Appellant has now appealed to this Court. The Notice of Appeal filed on the 13/03/2014 is contained on page 291 of the record of appeal.

In keeping with the tradition of this Court, parties filed, and exchanged their briefs. The Appellant’s brief of argument, deemed filed on the 17/01/2018, and was settled by one Ifeanyi Agwu Esq. of counsel.

On the other hand, the 2nd & 3rd Respondents brief of argument which was settled by one K. O. Uzoukwu Esq, was deemed filed on the 17/01/2018.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

Learned counsel for the Appellant formulated a sole issue for the determination of this appeal as follows:

PAGE 6

Whether the Court below was right to hold as it did that a mere letter of invitation for interview sent to the 2nd & 3rd Respondents based on criminal allegation against them constitute a breach of their fundamental rights.

(This issue is distilled from grounds 1 and 2 of the Notice of appeal)”

On the other hand, Learned counsel for the 2nd & 3rd Respondents, however, formulated a sole issue for determination as follows:

“Whether from the circumstances that gave rise to this case as a result of the intimidation and humiliation of the 2nd & 3rd Respondents in the hands of the 1st Respondent’s agent (Police) and from the undenied facts, the Court of Appeal was not right to hold that the letter of invitation (Exhibit V) from the Appellant to the 2nd & 3rd Respondents created fear in them to suspect them likelihood of the breach of their fundamental right once again.”

Looking at the issues as formulated by both parties, it is clear that the two issues are akin to each other. I will use the issue, as formulated by the learned counsel for the Appellant in determination of this appeal.

PAGE 7

Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that by virtue of the EFCC Act 2004, the Appellant is assigned the responsibilities of Investigating all financial crimes. Learned counsel cited Section 6(h) of the EFCC Act.

Learned counsel submitted that the Appellant’s letter of invitation extended to 2nd & 3rd Respondents is part of its pre – trial investigation for an interview cannot be elevated to an infringement of 2nd & 3rd Respondents right. Learned counsel relied on ELRUFAI VS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATTVE (2003) FWLR (pt.173) 162.

Learned counsel submitted that, it is strongly contended by the Appellant that investigation begins as soon as the police have a hint, whether or not through a complaint of the commission of an offence.

Learned counsel further contended that according to Holtam J. Criminal Litigation College of Law publishing, 2005 page 22 an interview is the questioning of a suspect regarding his involvement or suspected involvement in a criminal offence or offences.

Learned counsel submitted that the striking words there is that the duty to investigate is only a preliminary process which invitation

PAGE 8

for an interview is part of the process of verifying the authenticity or otherwise of the allegations against the Appellant. Learned counsel argued that the 2nd & 3rd Respondents waved off this golden opportunity for them to clear themselves if truly they have a good defence but resorted to seeking for judicial fact against investigation. Reliance was put in EZEADUKWA vs MADUKA (1997) 8 NWLR (pt.5l8) 635 at 661 paras. B – D.

Learned counsel argued that the Appellant by sending a letter of invitation without more has shown that it had respect for the provisions of Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution which is consistent with the right to fair hearing.

Learned counsel submitted that the Appellant has made no attempt to arrest either the 2nd & 3rd Respondents or their officers or agents or privies. Learned counsel submitted that there was no covert act of the Appellant which could be said to aim essentially and unequivocally towards the contravention of their rights and a mere speculative conduct on the part of the Respondent cannot ground an action for infringement as held in UZOUKWU VS EZEONU II (1991) 6 NWLR (pt.200) 708.

PAGE 9

Learned counsel submitted that the lower Court was in error when it held that the 1st Respondent was using the Appellant as their debt collector in a transaction that was civil and contractual he argued that no particular material was placed before the lower Court to show that the Appellant is a debt collector or indeed intend or attempted to recover any debt as no such petition was placed before the Appellant.

Learned counsel contended that the Appellant in exercise of its statutory functions received a petition attached to its counter Affidavit and as part of its process of investigation invited the 2nd & 3rd Respondents for explanatory discussions.

Learned counsel argued that, the law is now settled that Appellant is not precluded from investigating offences not stated in a petition addressed to it. He cited FEDERAL REPUBLIC of NIGERIA vs SANI (2005) All FWLR (pt.765) 1832 – 1863 – 1864.

Learned counsel submitted that the Court has decried the dangerous practice of rushing to the Courts to prevent the security agencies from arresting, investigating and prosecuting criminal suspects.

He cited ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF ANAMBRA STATE VS CHIEF CHRIS UBA (2005) 15 NWLR (pt. 947) 44 at 67.

PAGE 10

Finally, Learned counsel submitted that the decision of the lower Court is perverse and contrary to established legal principles. He urged the Court to allow the Appeal, set aside the judgment of the lower Court and restore the ruling of the trial Court.

On the other hand learned counsel for the 2nd & 3rd Respondents submitted that it is the constitutional right of the 2nd & 3rd Respondents to insist, and where necessary, protest where their account with the 1st Respondent was not kept properly in line with the Central Bank guidelines as contained in the offer letters on which the transaction between parties was regulated.

Learned counsel argued that there was an agreement between the 2nd & 3rd Respondents on one hand, and the 1st Respondent on the other hand to refer the matter to the Banker’s committee for investigation. Learned counsel referred the Court to page 12 of the Record of Appeal. Learned counsel submitted that, the Court of Appeal was right when it held that the 1st Respondent and the 2nd & 3rd Respondents mutually agreed to refer the matter to Banker’s Committee for Investigation.

PAGE 11

He further submitted that it is only by employing subterfuge against the 2nd & 3rd Respondents by falsely petitioning them to the police and the Appellant that the 1st Respondent thought she would have been able to cow them to abandon their claim before the Banker’s Committee.

Learned Counsel argued that the action of the 2nd & 3rd Respondents in submitting themselves to the Banker’s Committee is a case of clear conscience that fears no accusation.

Learned Counsel further argued that the petition from the 1st Respondent to the Appellant was not enough for the Appellant to act upon, in the absence of any verifiable material from the 1st Respondent.

Learned Counsel contended that, it is evidently clear that the petition to the Appellant was made mala tide and clothed with untruths and occasioned by malice.

Learned counsel submitted that, it is very clear that the invitation of the 1st Respondent by the Appellant cannot be considered in isolation of the arrest and detention of the 3rd Respondent by the agents of the 1st Respondent and also the intimidation of the 3rd Respondent when the 1st Respondent forcefully collected

PAGE 12

1,000,000.00K cash and another 1,000,000.00K in post dated cheque while in the police cell just for the simple reasons of the 2nd & 3rd Respondents referring the 1st Appellant conduct and/or unprofessionalism to the Banker’s Committee.

Learned counsel contended that the letter to the 1st Respondent did not show any statement of account showing how the alleged debt can be verified if any.

Learned counsel argued that, the lower Court was right in holding that the issuance of (Exhibit v) by the Appellant at the behest of the 1st Respondent was unlawful and a violation of the fundamental right of the 3rd Respondent to personal liberty.

Learned counsel further submitted that the 3rd Respondent was gripped with fear as a result of the treatment the 1st Respondent and its agents earlier meted out to the 3rd Respondent. Counsel submits finally that the 1st Respondent was only bent on using law enforcement agencies to extort money from the 2nd & 3rd Respondents than allowing the matter to be verified by the Banker’s Committee.

He urged this Court to dismiss this appeal and confirm the decision of the lower Court.

Upon a critical consideration of

PAGE 13

the entirety of the submission of Learned counsel in this case vis-a-vis the facts and circumstances of the case, I hold the view that there is no doubt that a mere letter of invitation from the Appellant to the 2nd – 3rd Respondents did not constitute abuse of the process of law, and/or breach of fundamental right. However, looking at the surrounding circumstances, before the letter, one will think otherwise.

Very material for consideration herein is the supporting Affidavit of the Applicants, (2nd & 3rd) particularly paragraphs 9 – 33 thereof.

Which is at page 11 – 14 of the Record of Appeal. The said affidavit is reproduced thus:

9. “That in early 2003 the Applicants suspected that their Account with 1st Respondent was not kept in line with the dictates as it affects lending and complained to the 1st Respondent after going through their statement of Account.
10. That with this suspicion confirmed the Applicants made up their mind to sue the 1st Respondent but were advised to consult a Banking consultant -Trust Adjusters Nigeria Limited to look into the Account to affirm their suspicion.
11. That pursuant to the advice the

PAGE 14

Applicants instructed their Lawyer K.O. Uzoukwu Esq. to instruct the Banking consultants to reconcile their Account. Annexed as EXHIBIT “C” is the letter.

12. That on reconciliation of the Account by the consultant it was discovered by the consultant that the 1st Respondent charged excess Bank charges on the Applicants Account to the tune of N6,701,029.34K as at 15th October, 2003 and N10,776,921. 12K as at 31/3/2004.
13. That on this overwhelming discovery the Applicants mandated the consultants to recover the excess charges from the 1st Respondent.
14. That the consultant immediately wrote the 1st Respondents Managing Director with these facts and demanded that the excess Bank charges be credited back to the Applicants Accounts. Annexed as EXHIBIT D” is the letter from the Consultant to the 1st Respondent.
15. That the 1st Respondent acknowledged receipt of the letter and thereafter the consultant and the 1st Respondent exploited the channel of communication and on that basis the matter was referred to the Bankers Committee – sub Committee on ethics and professionalism by the Applicants with a payment of N50,000.00K (Fifty Thousand

PAGE 15

Naira) only to adjudicate on the claims and counter claims of the parties. Annexed as EXHIBIT E, F and G” are the 1st Respondent reply, the consultants letter to the Bankers Committee and their acknowledgement.

16. That on discovery of this excess Bank charges the Applicants wrote to the 1st Respondent for the suspension of the interest on the Account. Annexed as EXHIBIT “H” is the letter.
17. That while the matter was pending before the Bankers Committee the Applicants continued to make payments into the Account to show good faith in paying off the loan while expecting the 1st Respondent to credit their Account with the excess Bank charges. Annexed as EXHIBIT ‘J’ are the tellers used in paying the 1st Respondent to date and amounting to N12,760,000.00K (Twelve Million Seven Hundred and Sixty Thousand Naira) only.
18. That inspite of the matter before the Bankers Committee the 1st Respondents’ staff kept on harassing the Applicants to abandon their claim or else they will frame him up and drag him to the E.F.C.C. that he is a 419″.
19. That this intimidation and harassment resulted in the Applicants

PAGE 16

letter to the Managing Director dated 20th December, 2004. Annexed as EXHIBIT K’ is the letter.

20. That due to the pressure on the Applicants by the 1st Respondents’ staff who obviously were not interested in waiting for the outcome of the adjudication by Bankers Committee reported to the Banking consultant who wrote a reminder to the Bankers Committee on the 10th March, 2005, to hasten up the adjudication among other cases before the Committee as referred to it by him. Annexed as EXHIBIT M’ is the letter.
21. That on the 14th March, 2005, the Respondent who had failed to give Applicants any statement of Account for more than a year came up with a frivolous outstanding balance of N44,1347,00.76K without saying anything on the Applicants letter of 20/12/2004, to their Managing Director. Annexed as EXHIBIT N” is the letter.
22. That in reaction the Applicants wrote back to the 1st Respondents on the 29th March, 2005, advising it to wait for the decision of the Bankers Committee before anyone can ascertain the true indebtedness. Annexed as EXHIBIT P” is the letter.
23. That the 1st Applicant was at Eastern Bulkem

PAGE 17

Company premises transacting his cement business when the 1st Respondent Port Harcourt Branch vehicle (a peugeot Station Wagon) stopped by his office and the policemen emerged from the vehicle while others remained inside and informed him that they were Police men from Lagos and that he was required at Mile 1, Police Station Port Harcourt.

24. That he enquired to know why he was required at the Station but they informed him that they will tell him when they get there and he immediately followed them to the Station where he was informed by the policemen that the 1st Respondent petitioned that he was a 419″ and the policemen immediately gave orders for the 1st Applicant to be detained in the cell which was promptly carried out after he was stripped naked.
25. That few hours in the cell his blood pressure rose drastically and he complained to his Manager who summoned his Doctor and who rushed down immediately and gave him treatment that will last till the next day as the policemen after clamping the 1st Applicant in the cell left and never came back until the next day (19/4/2005).
26. That on arrival the next day the policemen

PAGE 18

forcefully extracted the sum of N1,000,000.00K and which was paid into the 1st Respondents Account on the 20/4/2005, and another N1,000,000.00K post dated cheque in favour of the 1st Respondent and dated 4/06/2005, as they informed the 1st Applicant that it is on the basis of the said payments that they will grant him bail failure which, they will bundle him to Lagos for more detention.

27. That further to the detention of the 1st Applicant, the policemen invited the 1st Applicant to their office in Lagos on the 10th May, 05, and the 1st Applicant being afraid that his humiliation and intimidation will continue once he reports in Lagos over a purely commercial civil transaction which the 1st Respondent has labeled a 419″ sought for leave to enforce his fundamental right from this Court and which Justice A. O. FAJI granted on the 9th May, 2005. Annexed as EXHIBITS “T” and U is the invitation letter and the order of the Court.
28. That the matter is still pending in the Federal High Court 2 and instead of waiting for the judgment of the Court the 1st Respondent in disregard of the Court petitioned us again to EFCC on spurious

PAGE 19

claims when it is it that is owing us just to use its right to intimidate us.

29. That debt recovery is not part of EFCC duties under its Act or at all and that I am afraid that my humiliation and intimidation will continue once I report in Lagos over a purely commercial/Civil transaction which the 1st Respondent has labeled a Bank fraud/Diversion of depositors fund. Annexed as EXHIBIT V is the invitation from EFCC to me.
30. That it is the 1st Respondent that is owing me and not the other way round hence the 1st Respondent did not allow the Bankers Committee to intervene in the matter which it has done in other matters referred to it by the same Banking consultant for intervention. Annexed as EXHIBIT W” is the intervention of Bankers Committee in a mater referred to by the Banking consultant.
31. That the 1st Respondent is using its connection with Law Enforcement Agencies (police & EFCC) to intimidate and harass me into abandoning our claims of Excess Bank charges which it is owing us.
32. That the 1st Respondent has not applied to Court for the forfeiture of the security for the said facility neither has it

PAGE 20

sued us for the recovery of the said debt.

33. That there is no judgment against the Applicants in favour of the 1st Respondent.”

I must say that I took the pain to reproduce the above paragraphs of the affidavit because I have looked at the affidavit by the Appellant in opposing the application, but these averments were not effectively denied by the Appellant. The Appellant has not offered sufficient explanation in refuting them. See L. C. C. VS OGUNBIYI (1969) 1 All NLR 297 at 299; LEWIS & PEAT (NIG) LTD VS AKHIMIEN (1976) 7 S.C. 157. The learned trial judge in his Ruling at page 23 of the record of appeal stated as follows: “I have read the facts in support of this applications itemize (a) – c and 2 (a) – d, all the facts that relates to acts that occurred in 2005. i.e. in April, 2005, are not relevant for the purposes of the matter before me, 1st they are acts that occurred for more than 12 months before the present suit was initiated.The above view of learned trial Judge is in clear contradiction to the Provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Evidence Act 2011, which provide thus: “4. Facts which, though not

PAGE 21

in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, is relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.

“5. Facts which are the occasion, cause or effect, immediately or otherwise, of relevant facts, or facts in issue or which constitute the state of things under which they happened, or which afforded an opportunity for their occurrence or transition, are relevant.”

From the foregoing, it is my view that the parties having mutually agreed to refer the matter to the chartered Institute of Banker’s sub committee on ethics and professionalism, yet the 1st Respondent went ahead to report the matter to Financial Malpractices Investigation Unit, Force C. I. D. annex, Lagos even when the Banker’s Committee directed the parties to stay away from any further action pending the determination of her investigation, this was clearly understood and agreed by both parties.

As if that was not enough, the 1st Respondent, again, reported the matter to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission EFCC (Appellant). This amounted to an abuse of process.

PAGE 22

It is important for me to pause and say here that the powers conferred on the Appellant, i.e. the EFCC to receive complaints and prevent and/or fight the commission of financial crimes in Nigeria pursuant to Section 6(b) of the EFCC Act (Supra) does not extend to the investigation and/or resolution of disputes arising or resulting from simple contracts or civil transactions as in this case.

The EFCC has an inherent duty to scrutinize all complaints that it receives carefully, no matter how carefully crafted by the complaining party, and be bold enough to counsel such complainants to seek appropriate/lawful means to resolve their disputes. Alas! the EFCC is not a debt recovery agency and should refrain from being used as such.

Generally, abuse of process involves circumstances and situations of infinite variety and conditions and which may be occasioned by malice, bias and desire to misuse or pervert the system of administration of justice. See SARAKI VS KOTOYE (1992) NWLR (Pt. 264) at 156. I agree entirely with lower Court in its judgment at page 281 of the record of appeal when the Court held:

“The complaint of the Appellants, which unfortunately the learned trial

PAGE 23

misconceived, is that the 1st Respondent is resorting to multiplicity of the complaints against them over the same issue to law enforcement agencies purposely to harass and emasculate them from complaining about the fraud of the 1st Respondent subjecting their account to illegal charges to its benefit and to the detriment of the Appellants. A banking consultant employed by the Appellants detected the fraud. Thereafter the Appellants and the 1st Respondent mutually agreed and the matter was referred to the Bankers Committee (sub-committee) on ethics and professionalism for arbitration. The 1st Respondent admits this fact and avers in the Counter Affidavit that the “committee – is yet to finally adjudicate on the matter.” While the matter is yet to be finally adjudicated upon by the committee the 1st Respondent reported the Appellants to the police. The 1st Appellant was arrested and detained, and had to unwillingly pay N2,000,000.00K to the 1st Respondent in order to be granted bail.”

Looking at all that has been said, I am convinced by the learned counsel for the 2nd – 3rd Respondents that, the actions of the 1st Respondent was aimed at frustrating the

PAGE 24

investigation that is before the Bankers committee. The subsequent actions of reporting the matter to the police and to the Appellant were nothing but abuse of process of law. What is even more disturbing in recent times is the way and manner the Police and some other security agencies, rather than focus squarely on their statutory functions of investigation, preventing and prosecuting crimes, allow themselves to be used by overzealous and/or unscrupulous characters for the recovery of debts arising from simple contracts, loans or purely civil transactions. Our security agencies, particularly the police, must know that the citizenry’s confidence in them ought to first be ensured by the agencies themselves by jealously guarding the integrity of the uniform and powers conferred on them.

The beauty of salt is in its taste. Once salt loses its own taste, its value is irredeemably lost. I say this now and again, our security agencies, particularly the police, are not debt recovery agencies. The agencies themselves need to first come to this realization, shun all entreaties in this regard and they will see confidence gradually restored in them.

PAGE 25

Where we are now in this country is that place where our Men – in black & blue” command almost no respect from the citizenry because of how low we have sunk. But it is my belief, which belief I must say I hold very dearly, that all hope is not lost, many women and men of deep integrity are in our security agencies, and they only need to rise now to the occasion.

All that the 2nd & 3rd Respondents need to show to sustain this action are the facts or conditions stipulated in Order 2 Rule 1 of the Fundamental Right (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009 which says:

“Any person who alleges that any of the Fundamental Rights provided for in the Constitution or African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act and to which he is entitled, has been, is being, or is likely to be infringed, may apply to the Court in the State where the infringement occurs or likely to occur, for redress. The fundamental right, the 2nd & 3rd Respondents are seeking to enforce is the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Section 35(1) of the Constitution. The Section provide as follows: “Every person shall be entitled to his

PAGE 26

personal liberty and no person shall be deprived of such liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with procedure permitted by law.”

As I have stated earlier, the multiple actions by the 1st Respondent were nothing but abuse of process of law. However, the actions also constituted breach of fundamental right. The detention of the 3rd Respondent by the police in Lagos where he was compelled to pay N2,000,000.00K before he was granted bail, when the 1st Respondent knew very well that the Banker’s committee which is the constituted authority to investigate the alleged matter, was conducting its investigation, is a clear case of breach of fundamental right.

Exhibit V, which is the letter of invitation from the Appellant inviting 3rd Respondent also constituted likelihood of an infringement to the fundamental right of the 2nd & 3rd Respondents.

The 1st Respondent sensing another round of detention and intimidation from another Law Enforcement Agency, similar to what happened by the police in Lagos ran to the Court for enforcement of their fundamental right.

There is no way, the 1st Respondent could have reasonably suspected the

PAGE 27

2nd & 3rd Respondents to have committed any offence when the investigation, which the 1st Respondent submitted itself to the Banker’s Committee, has not been concluded.

I agree with the decision of the Court of Appeal on page 285 of the records wherein it stated:

“The application ought to have been granted. I hereby grant it. Accordingly, it is hereby declared that the invitation of the 1st Applicant/Appellant, vide Exhibit ‘V’, by the 2nd Respondent at the behest of the 1st Respondent is unlawful and a violation of the fundamental right of the 1st Applicant/Appellant to personal liberty and a continuation of the harassment of the Applicants/Appellants by the 1st Respondent in relation to the disputed or dubious debt allegedly owed by the Appellants to the 1st Respondent. The 1st Respondent cannot, under the enabling statute establishing the 2nd Respondent, improperly use the 2nd Respondent as their debt collectors in transactions that are completely civil and contractual. The Respondents, jointly and/or severally, are hereby restrained from disturbing, harassing and/or howsoever interfering with the personal liberty of the 1st

PAGE 28

Applicant/Appellant through intimidation, threats of invitation for interrogation, arrest, detention or in any other way or manner. Those shall be the declarations and order of the trial Court. The Ruling dismissing the application No. FHC/PH/CS1508712006, the subject of this appeal, is hereby set aside.”

Having said this, the sole issue in the appeal is resolved against the Appellant, the appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed, the judgment of the lower Court is hereby affirmed.

---

SC.868/2014