Court orders bank, army to pay N400m fine over officer’s wrongful conviction

Justice G.K. Olotu of the Federal High Court, Abuja, has ordered the Nigerian Army and First City Monument Bank to pay Major Akeem Oseni N416m in damages for wrongful conviction, denial of access to funds, and other violations.

The judgment, delivered on October 28, 2024, followed an application by Oseni to enforce his fundamental rights.

The case, filed as suit no: FHC/ABJ/CS/1104/2021, was initiated on September 22, 2021.

Oseni had sought several reliefs, including declarations that the freezing of his bank account by First City Monument Bank on the directive of the Nigerian Army, without a valid court order or adequate opportunity for defence, was unlawful.

He also challenged his alleged dehumanisation while in custody and the prolonged denial of access to his funds, describing these actions as clear violations of his constitutional rights.

The applicant argued that the actions of the respondents contravened sections 35, 36, 37, 41, 43, and 44 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended), as well as provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

The applicant (Oseni) had sued the Nigeria Army and First City Monument Bank as first and second respondents respectively in a suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1104/2021, for placing his account on a post-no-debit from February 2020.

The applicant sought 13 reliefs among which are: “A declaration that the act of the second respondent (FCMB) placing the personal account of the applicant domiciled at First City Monument Bank, with account number 2656152XXX on post-no-debit from February 2020, till date on the directives of the first respondent (Nigerian Army), without a valid court order, nor affording the applicant adequate time and facility to be heard, is illegal, wrongful, unlawful, and constitutes a blatant violation of the applicant’s fundamental rights to a fair hearing, the presumption of innocence, rights to own moveable and immovable property anywhere in Nigeria as enshrined in sections 36 (1), 36 (5), 43 and 44 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as altered; sections 1 (1) and (2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, and articles 2, 3 (2), 4 and 7 (2) of the African charter on human and peoples’ rights (Ratification and Enforcement) ACT Cap A9 laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004;

“A declaration that the dehumanisation of the applicant by the operatives of the 1st respondent, while in their custody for 10 months is illegal, wrongful, unlawful and constitutes a blatant violation of his fundamental human rights as enshrined in sections 35 (1), (3), (4), 37 and 41 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as altered, sections 1 (1), (2), and 30 (1), (2), 32 (1) (2) and (3) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, and Articles 6 and 12 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) act cap A9 laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004;

“A declaration that the continuous denial of the applicant access to his funds is a blatant disregard of his constitutional provision to own moveable and immoveable property, as there was no court order granted to that regard, therefore illegal, wrongful, unlawful and constitutes a blatant violation of the applicant’s fundamental rights as enshrined in sections 35 (1), (3), (41) (1), and (43), of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as altered, and sections 1 (1), (2) and 30 (1), (2) 32 (1), (2) 32 (1), (2) and (3), of the Administration of Criminal Justice act, 2015, and articles 6 and 12 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ rights (ratification and enforcement) act cap A9 laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004,” among others.

The judge, in his judgment on the suit, held that “The evidence before the court shows that respondents acted arbitrarily and over their powers in their dealings with the applicant, particularly in these respects:

“The joint action of the respondents to place the personal account of the applicant on a Post No Debit since February 2020 till date, without a valid court order or affording the applicant the right to be heard as constitutionally guaranteed.

“The action of the first respondent to conduct a search in a Gestapo manner and remove cash and valuables from the Applicant’s private apartment without a valid search warrant.

“The dehumanising treatment of placing the applicant on handcuff and leg chain while in the custody of the 1st Respondent before the confirmation of his sentence by the Army Council,

“Failure of the first respondent to grant bail to the applicant within 24 hours or 48 hours of his arrest/detention pending confirmation of his sentence by the Army Council.”

Speaking further, the judge noted that the first and second Respondents connived and conspired to illegally freeze the applicant’s account.

“The first respondent usurped the power of the court to order a freezing of the account by instructing the second respondent to freeze the applicant’s account. Ironically, the applicant’s finance was not implicated in the investigation of the case of manslaughter against him.

“And the second respondent knowing better, either for fear of the first respondent or for reasons best known to it obeyed the first respondent’s instructions and froze the applicant’s account. Whatever angle their conducts are viewed from, they acted clearly outside their powers.

“They probably thought that they were above the law. But the principle of exemplary damages will now tell them and show them that they are not above the law and that the law is no respect for anyone who breaks it. It was a big stick which it used and will now use to correct the abusive and excessive tendencies of the respondents.

“The first respondent also acted more than its powers in dehumanising the applicant.

“The applicant claimed the sum of N2billion award, of general and exemplary damages, I award N100m as general damages and N300m as exemplary damages against the respondents jointly and severally in favour of the applicant”, Justice Olotu held.

Major Akeem – FHC Judgment