Igboho’s N20b lawsuit against AGF, DSS heads to Supreme Court

Yoruba Nation activist, Chief Sunday Adeyemo, popularly known as Sunday Igboho, has approached the Supreme Court, Abuja, to seek the reversal of the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which set aside the N20 billion exemplary and aggravated damages awarded to him against the Federal Government.

It is recalled that operatives of the Department of State Security (DSS) had, in the early hours of July 1, 2021, raided Igboho’s residence at Soka, Ibadan, killing two persons and destroying properties, including cars and other valuables worth millions of naira.

Igboho had dragged the DSS and the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) before an Oyo State High Court for the violation of his fundamental human rights.

Presiding Justice Ladiran Akintola, who adjudicated on the matter in September 2022, awarded N20 billion in damages against the Federal Government.

But a judgment delivered in August 2022 by Justice Muslim Hassan of the Ibadan Division of the Appellate Court nullified the Oyo State High Court judgment that declared the attack on Igboho’s house illegal, describing the award of damages against the Federal Government as outrageous.

However, Igboho, in a suit marked SC/CV/1436/22, filed by his counsel, Yomi Alliu, SAN, before the Supreme Court, Abuja, and dated March 10, 2025, listed 19 grounds of appeal, surmised to 11 for determination.

Joined as defendants in the suit include the Attorney-General of the Federation, the Department of State Services (DSS), and the Director of DSS in Oyo State.

According to the court documents obtained by our correspondent on Wednesday, Igboho wants the apex court to determine, among others, “whether his fundamental rights had been breached and/or threatened to be breached, thereby situating his application in fundamental rights enforcement proceedings rather than in torts, as held by the Lower Court. (Grounds 1 & 2).

“The plaintiff also wants the Supreme Court to determine: ‘Whether the Lower Court could discountenance, as it did, the preliminary objections raised by the appellant simply because they were raised in his brief and because there were other good grounds that could maintain the appeal (Grounds 3, 4 & 5).’

“Whether the appellants’ brief filed by the respondents at the Lower Court out of the time stipulated by the rules is competent and whether the same could be deemed to have been waived by the respondent (now the appellant) by filing the respondent’s brief thereafter (Grounds 6, 7 & 8).

“Whether an application for an extension of time to file an additional record of appeal could be used to cure a fundamental default in not filing the original record of appeal within the time allowed by the learned Justices of the Lower Court. (Ground 9).

“Whether the Lower Court was right in holding that the award of special damages was wrong for not being supported with a valuation report, notwithstanding the uncontradicted affidavit evidence supported with exhibits showing items damaged and invoices submitted by experts in the field (Grounds 17 & 18).

“Whether it is not the duty of a government agency like the respondents to prove beyond reasonable doubt that illegal arms allegedly recovered from the house of a citizen were as alleged, more so when, apart from the video recordings they made there, the respondents also made away with the CCTV in the house. (Ground 15).

“Whether the assessment of aggravated and/or exemplary damages by the learned trial judge is unilateral and/or irrational and not in compliance with laid-down rules for assessing the same (Ground 16).”