A Federal High Court sitting in Asaba, Delta State, on Thursday, ordered the Department of State Security Service (DSS) to pay a sum of N10million to a businessman, Anthony Okolie, who was arrested in 2019 and detained for 10 weeks by the agency for using a SIM card that previously used by President Muhammadu Buhari’s daughter, Hanan.
The businessman, Okolie had sued the DSS, President Buhari’s daughter, Hanan, and MTN Nigeria to court as 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants respectively over the violation of his fundamental human rights.
In the suit marked FHC/ASB/CS/3/2020, the plaintiff, among other reliefs, sought an order of the court to compel the defendants to pay the sum of N500m damages for his unlawful detention. He equally requested for a public apology from the Respondents for the embarrassments he encountered.
The plaintiff in his suit claimed that he purchased the contentious SIM Card with phone Number 09035666662, as offered by MTN Nigeria at Ogbe Ogonogo Market, Nnebisi Road, Asaba, Delta State, and got same registered as required by the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC).
He averred that while using the SIM card, he was traced and arrested by the DSS on the claim that the phone number was used to make communications considered suspicious and nefarious, and aimed to impersonate Buhari’s daughter.
After hearing, the court in a judgment delivered by Justice Nnamdi Dimgba, held that the security agency violated the fundamental rights of the plaintiff by holding him beyond the constitutionally approved period and without informing him in writing the grounds and facts of his arrest, within 24 hours of the arrest.
Justice Dimgba ruled that the arrest amounted to gross violation of his fundamental human rights under Section 35(3) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
The court also lambasted the agency for detaining plaintiff for 10 weeks between 21st July, 2019 and 22nd September, 2019, without any detention order, which he said was illegal as it violated his right to personal liberty guaranteed by Section 35 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
However, the court dismissed the claims that the President’s daughter masterminded the arrest and detention stating that though Hanan’s position as a member of the first family could lead to such suspicions, nonetheless, that law rests on evidence and not assumptions and sentiments.
In the judgment, Justice Dimgba held that the security agency acted arbitrarily and tyrannical by not charging the plaintiff to court within 48 hours after he was arrested. The court therefore rejected excuses by the agency that the plaintiff was detained to enable the agency carry out and conclude investigations.
“I hold that the explanations offered by the 1st Respondent for not complying with the constitutional requirement of either releasing the Applicant from custody or charging him to court promptly, are not acceptable.
“This is not acceptable. In a plethora of authorities, the courts have held that an arrest should only be made when investigations have been conducted, and that citizens are not to be arrested for the purposes of conducting an investigation. In summary, I hold that the fundamental right of the Applicant to his personal liberty was violated by his detention for a period of 10 weeks, and that the defence of the 1st Respondent in this respect fails in totality”, Justice Dimgba held.
On inclusion of President Buhari’s daughter in the matter, the court held that the Plaintiff failed to substantiate direct link or actions taken in the matter other than that the SIM card previously belonged to her and she belongs to the first family of the country.
“I will imagine that the idea that the 2nd Respondent, in abuse of her privileged position, ordered the arrest and the brutalization of a helpless and hapless citizen, might excite as an elixir, social media crusaders, or act as an aromatic tonic for the gossip-mill, on account of the 2nd Respondent’s connections to the ultimate executive authority of this country as a daughter of the President.
“But liability in law is only the product of direct and concrete accusation supported by credible evidence. Liability in law is not a product of speculation or the derivative of popular referendum. It is not one which the courts have to grope in the dark to find. “That said, I cannot find my way clear in holding her liable in any shape or form for the ordeal suffered by the Applicant.
“In the first instance, even if admittedly the “Presidency” directed the 1st Respondent to investigate the so-called suspicious use of a SIM card previously linked to the 2nd Respondent, the President’s daughter, I do not believe that the Presidency directed the 1st Respondent not to carry out their investigation in a manner that was consistent with the Constitution and other relevant law. “Reliefs 5, 7, and 12 are hereby granted against the 1st Respondent. Relief 10 is granted but limited to the sum of N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) against the 1st Respondent as general damages for the unlawful detention of the Applicant for a period of 10 weeks”, the court held.
The court though declined to grant to plaintiff’s request for an apology, it issued an order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st Respondent (DSS) from further harassing or arresting him vis-à-vis the matter.
Justice Dimgba also held that the plaintiff failed to establish that MTN Nigeria Communications Limited; 3rd Respondents in the matter, in any way was involved in circumstances that led to the violation of his fundamental rights. Thus, cleared the communication company.