A businessman, Jonathan Nwanze, has dragged the Nigerian Army, the Chief of Army Staff, the Attorney-General of the Federation and the Commanding Officer of the 81 Battalion before the Federal High Court in Lagos over his alleged unlawful arrest, detention and the invasion of his residence.
Nwanze is demanding ₦120 million in damages and is also challenging the legal authority of the Army to investigate civilians over alleged financial crimes, including money laundering and terrorism financing.
At the resumed hearing of the fundamental rights enforcement suit on Tuesday, November 10, his lawyer, Olawale Fapohunda, SAN, told the court that the Army had released his client without filing any criminal charge against him.
However, Fapohunda alleged that the military was still withholding Nwanze’s international passport and other personal belongings. He further claimed that lawyers seeking the release of the items were given conditions, including withdrawing the pending suit.
Counsel to the first and second respondents, O.E. Alaofin, undertook to facilitate the release of the passport.
Alaofin also informed the court that the respondents had filed applications to regularise their counter-affidavit dated October 27, 2026.
Justice D.I. Dipeolu observed that the Attorney-General of the Federation, the third respondent, was neither present nor represented. The judge said the AGF should be given an opportunity to be heard before the matter proceeded.
The court consequently adjourned the case until December 2, 2026, for hearing.
The suit, marked FHC/LAG/FR/485/2026, seeks ₦50 million for alleged unlawful arrest and detention, ₦40 million for alleged violation of Nwanze’s right to dignity and ₦30 million over the alleged invasion of his residence.
The businessman is also asking the court to declare that his arrest and detention without reasonable cause violated his right to personal liberty under Section 35 of the 1999 Constitution.
He further contends that the alleged invasion of his home breached his right to privacy and family life under Section 37, while the seizure and continued retention of his 2019 Hyundai Creta Evolution GLS and private documents violated his right to own property under Section 44.
According to his affidavit, military personnel invaded his residence at Agungi, Lekki, Lagos, on October 6, 2026, and arrested him four days later.
He alleged that while in detention, his family members, friends, lawyers and personal doctor were denied access to him.
Lawyer questions Army’s investigative powers
In a reply on points of law filed on November 5, Fapohunda challenged the Army’s authority to investigate his client, arguing that the Armed Forces Act primarily empowers the military to investigate offences involving persons subject to service law.
He maintained that Nwanze, being a civilian, did not fall within the categories of persons subject to service law under Section 270 of the Act.
The senior advocate argued that the investigation of financial offences such as fraud and money laundering falls within the statutory responsibilities of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission under Section 6 of its Establishment Act.
He submitted that where military authorities arrest civilians suspected of such offences, they should hand them over to the appropriate law enforcement agency for investigation and possible prosecution.
On allegations of terrorism financing, Fapohunda addressed the respondents’ reliance on the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022.
Although he acknowledged that Section 64 of the law provides for military powers to arrest, search and detain suspects in specified circumstances, he argued that the provision does not expressly grant the Army investigative powers over the alleged offences.
He also noted that Section 99 identifies the Army among agencies recognised under the legislation, but maintained that Nwanze should have been transferred to the EFCC or the State Security Service for investigation.
Disputes remand order
The applicant’s lawyer also challenged the respondents’ reliance on an ex parte remand order allegedly obtained from the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt on October 16, 2026.
Fapohunda argued that the order could not retrospectively justify Nwanze’s detention, which allegedly began on October 10, six days before the order was obtained.
He maintained that criminal allegations against an individual do not remove the constitutional safeguards governing arrest and detention.
The senior advocate also opposed the respondents’ argument that the fundamental rights suit was premature because investigations and remand proceedings were reportedly ongoing.
He argued that the existence of those processes did not prevent the court from determining whether Nwanze’s rights had been violated.
The respondents had also questioned the inclusion of the Commanding Officer of the 81 Battalion as a party, arguing that the office was not a juristic person capable of being sued.
Fapohunda countered that even if the objection succeeded, it would not invalidate the entire suit, which could proceed against the other respondents.
The court has yet to determine the substantive claims or the competing arguments over the Army’s powers.
Although Nwanze has been released without any charge being filed against him, he is pressing ahead with the case over his alleged arrest, detention and the continued retention of his belongings.
Justice Dipeolu adjourned the matter until December 2 for hearing.
You must be logged in to post a comment.