By Anthony Ochela, Abuja
The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on Monday upheld the constitutional powers of the Nigeria Police Force to investigate credible allegations of crime, as it dismissed a N1 billion fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by the President of the Nigerian Baptist Convention, Rev. (Dr.) Israel Akanji.
Rev. Akanji had approached the court alleging harassment, a smear campaign, and violation of his rights following a petition accusing him of forging the constitution of the First Baptist Church, Garki, Abuja, and misappropriating church funds.
In the suit marked FHC/ABJ/152/2025, Akanji listed the Nigeria Police Force, the Inspector General of Police, senior police officers—CP Ajani Musibau Omolabi and DCP Rita Oki Oyintare—as well as the petitioner, Engineer Adekunle Mokuolu, among others, as respondents.
His counsel, Ovrawah Ogaga, SAN, sought a declaration that Akanji’s arrest and detention on June 5, 2024, by the police based on Mokuolu’s petition, were unlawful and a violation of his fundamental rights.
He also sought an injunction restraining the police from further arresting or harassing him, as well as N1 billion in damages for alleged rights violations.
However, in his judgment, Justice Obiora Egwuatu held that the police acted within the scope of their duties and that Rev. Akanji failed to establish that his rights were violated.
“The police have a duty under the law to investigate any reasonable suspicion of a crime. The arrest or invitation for questioning based on a petition is not, in itself, a violation of fundamental rights,” the judge ruled.
The judge held that the request by the police, that the applicant make himself available subsequently does not violate his liberty as it is part of the investigation process.
He added that individuals who report suspected crimes cannot be penalized for performing their civic duty, referencing the popular adage: “If you see something, say something.”
Justice Egwuatu also noted that the matter has already led to the filing of criminal charges currently pending before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), sitting in Kwali, in case number CR/1045/24.
He advised that any civil claims for damages or allegations of malice should be pursued only after the conclusion of the criminal trial and if Akanji is acquitted.
On the issue of jurisdiction, the court dismissed the preliminary objection raised by the police challenging the suit’s competence on procedural grounds.
The judge held that fundamental rights suits can be validly instituted through any mode acceptable to the court.
Akanji, in an originating motion filed by his lawyer, was among other things, demanding an order that the respondents pay, jointly and severally, the sum of N1billion being compensation and damages for the harassment and expenses suffered during the violations and deprivation of his fundamental rights.
However, in a counter affidavit in opposition to the originating motion maintained that his petition was filed in good faith to address the alleged abuse of office and financial irregularities against the church.
Mokuolu insisted that the police acted within their legal mandate by inviting Akanji.
He insisted that the applicant was never arrested or detained as claimed but was released on bail based on relf-recognition on the same day he was invited by the officers (first to sixth respondents).
He dismissed Akanji’s claim of rights violation, noting that the matter has already resulted in criminal charges pending before the FCT High Court in Kwali in the suit marked CR/1045/24.
The seventh respondent told the court that granting the fundamental rights reliefs sought by Akanji would undermine ongoing judicial proceedings.
The respondent averred that the first to sixth respondents have a duty to investigate crimes and were only carrying out their duty by inviting the applicant to help with their investigation.
The seventh respondent said it was untrue that he insisted that the first to sixth respondents invite the applicant to their office severally as he does not have the power to control the way they carry out their duties under the law.
He also maintained that the applicant is not entitled to a hefty and deterrent cost as damages against the respondents who were carrying out their lawful duties.
Mokuolu asked the court to dismiss the motion as the interest of justice will not be served if the application is granted.