The Risk of reporting a debtor to the police
................................

MUSA DAIBU Versus INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, AND THREE OTHERS: A Case Study.

The applicant, Musa Daibu filed an action in court bordering on infringement of his fundamental human rights by the Inspector General of Police and three other respondents which included the investigating police officers and the actual complainant. In the action, the applicant alleged that the 4th respondent Mr O (name withheld) had a business transaction with him which did not go as planned and following which he became indebted to him to the tune of millions of naira.

The applicant further alleged that following his inability to pay up his debts to the 4th respondent, the 4th respondent reported the matter to the Inspector General of Police who assigned the case to the 2nd and 3rd respondents who are police operatives working in the Special Fraud Unit of the Police Force.

The applicant further alleged that the 2nd and 3rd respondents while investigating the matter, arrested him, paraded him in the public and subsequently detained him for a long period.

Because of all these, the applicant filed the action at the Lagos State High Court presided over by Honourable Justice Olukayode Ogunjobi.

In court, the applicant claimed the sum of ten million naira as damages against all the respondents jointly and severally.

The 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants did not attend court sittings and never put up any defence despite being served with all the court processes. The 4th respondent was represented by Lawrence C. Nnoli who raised two points as issues for determination in defence of the 4th respondent:

The two issues are

1. Whether the applicant has sufficiently shown that the actions of the police in molesting him, parading him and subsequently detaining him were actually at the behest of the 4th respondent especially when the petition was not produced before the court.

2. Whether the applicant is precluded from criminal investigation and arrest and is covered by immunity as provided by Section 304 of the Nigerian Constitution.
Also counsel to the 4th respondent, Lawrence C. Nnoli argued that the 4th respondent is empowered by law to report a perceived criminal act to law enforcement agents instead of taking laws into his hands and cannot therefore be punished for doing that.

Judgment

Among other things, the court held that the police have no business in enforcing debt obligations or helping parties to settle or recover their debts. The remedy for such breach of contract according to the court is in civil action for damages and (or) specific performance. The court further held that since the applicant did not produce the petition written by the 4th respondent to the police, it would be difficult for it to determine the exact complaints of the 4th respondent to the Police and thus it cannot speculate on the complicity of the 4th respondent with the Police to infringe on his fundamental human rights.

The court went further and awarded judgment against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents exempting the 4th respondent.


http://www.excellawchambers.com/law/2019/08/16/the-risk-of-reporting-a-debtor-to-the-police/

Edu Nnoli.

xangerar:
Edu Nnoli.

Who knows me.

just hand everything over to God and he will sort you out