| A Federal High Court sitting in Benin yesterday said the arrest of a Nigerian and three American filmmakers by men of the Joint Military Taskforce is illegal and a breach of the constitution. It also awarded the sum N5 million as damages against the Federal Government. Men of the Joint Military Task Force had arrested Joel Bisina and three Americans who were in Nigeria for a documentary on the Niger Delta titled “Sweet Crude” on April 12, hound them to Abuja by road in the night before handing them over to men of the State Security Services who held them for about six days. Bisina had approached the Federal High Court through his counsel, Dr. Bello Orubebe, praying for declaration that his arrest, detention and harassment without access to his counsel and medicare breached his fundamental human rights and asked for a cumulative damages of N15 million. The respondents were the Attorney General of the federation, the Chief of Defence Staff, the Inspector General of Police, commander of the Joint Military Task Force and the State Security Services. The presiding judge, Justice M. B. Idris in his judgment granted all the prayers by the plaintiff and held that the arrest and detention of Bisina was illegal unconstitutional and null and void, adding that the denial of access to medical personnel in it self also constitute bridge of fundamental human rights. Idris also declared as unconstitutional, the demand for security pass by the military in the Niger Delta waterways and ordered the defendants to tender unreserved public apology to the plaintiff and also pay him a compensation for general damages to the tune of N5 million. Orubebe, counsel to the plaintiff speaking to reporters, described the judgment as an erudite, well written judgment , noting that it was not just a land mark judgment but that it had taken human right judgment and practice to the 21st century . The Federal Government had earlier lost a preliminary objection arguing that the court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the matter for non-compliance by the applicant with the provisions of Orders 2 rule 1(4) and Order 1 rule 2(3) of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 1979. Orubebe counsel to the applicant had “urged the court to hold that the application is properly before the court, and that where there is a right, there is a remedy relying on the case of Omoyinwa Vs Ogubiju (2003).” Idris in his ruling had held that “the applicant’s application is properly before this court…the objection taken by the 1st respondent has no merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost.” |
Nov292008