JIL 111 Assignment Question and Answers

JIL ASSIGNMENT QUESTION

In 230 lines and with the use of Issues, Principles, Application and Conclusion write this argument below.
Following a violent demonstration in ogirika village chief omeihekwu was arrested and detained for six months because he was a leader of a river political party in omego state,he was alleged to have instigate the crisis,in his detention, sergeant onoma gave him a slaps for the first one week and he was no allowed to receive visitor during his Incastration, the police coordinated to record his phone conversation because the news paper in which he had controlling states published articles accusing governor onyeukwu of omego state,his lawyer barrister Eze marbel resides in Abuja was received entry into omego state in the governor of onyeukwu, following the application of bail files on his behalf by a civil liberty organisation,ozondu,he was released and was not allowed to travel outside 25km of the state, advice chief omeihekwu

LEGAL ADVICE TO CHIEF OMEIHEKWU

ISSUES

The legal issues that arise from the given facts are as follows:

1. Unlawful Detention – Was Chief Omeihekwu’s six-month detention without trial lawful under Nigerian law?

2. Torture and Inhumane Treatment – Did Sergeant Onoma’s act of slapping Chief Omeihekwu for the first week of his detention violate his fundamental rights?

3. Denial of Legal Representation – Was it lawful for Governor Onyeukwu to deny Barrister Eze Marbel entry into Omego State, preventing him from defending Chief Omeihekwu?

4. Violation of Privacy – Did the police have the right to record Chief Omeihekwu’s phone conversations without his consent?

5. Restriction of Movement – Was the restriction that prevented Chief Omeihekwu from traveling beyond a 25km radius after his release lawful?

⸻

PRINCIPLES OF LAW

To answer these questions, we will rely on relevant provisions of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended), international human rights laws, and judicial precedents.

1. Unlawful Detention

• Section 35(1) of the 1999 Constitution guarantees every individual the right to personal liberty and prohibits detention beyond 48 hours without a court order.

• Section 36(5) states that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a competent court of law.

• In Ekwenugo v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2001) 6 NWLR (Pt. 708) 171, the court ruled that prolonged detention without trial violates the Constitution.

• Article 6 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement Act, CAP A9, LFN 2004) also protects individuals from arbitrary detention.

2. Torture and Inhumane Treatment

• Section 34(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution provides that every individual is entitled to dignity, and no one shall be subjected to torture or inhumane treatment.

• Section 2 of the Anti-Torture Act 2017 criminalizes torture and ill-treatment of detainees.

• In Ubani v. Director of State Security Services (SSS) (2017) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1573) 187, the court held that any form of physical abuse against a detained person is unconstitutional.

• The United Nations Convention Against Torture, which Nigeria ratified, prohibits the use of torture under any circumstance.

3. Denial of Legal Representation

• Section 36(6)(c) of the 1999 Constitution grants every accused person the right to legal representation.

• In Chief Gani Fawehinmi v. Nigerian Bar Association (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt. 105) 494, the court held that denying an accused access to a lawyer is a fundamental breach of their rights.

• Article 7(1)(c) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights guarantees legal representation for all persons accused of a crime.

4. Violation of Privacy

• Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution protects individuals from unlawful interference with their privacy, including their communications.

• In Magaji v. Nigeria Army (2008) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1089) 338, the court held that phone tapping without judicial authorization is unconstitutional.

• Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) also protects individuals from arbitrary surveillance.

5. Restriction of Movement

• Section 41(1) of the 1999 Constitution states that every citizen has the right to move freely throughout Nigeria.

• In Directorate of State Security Service v. Agbakoba (1999) 3 NWLR (Pt. 595) 314, the court ruled that movement restrictions must be justified by law and not arbitrarily imposed.

• Article 12(1) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights also protects freedom of movement.

⸻

APPLICATION OF LAW TO FACTS

1. Unlawful Detention

Chief Omeihekwu was detained for six months without trial, violating his right to personal liberty under Section 35(1) of the 1999 Constitution. Since there was no evidence that a court order was obtained to justify the prolonged detention, it was unconstitutional. Furthermore, the presumption of innocence under Section 36(5) means he should not have been detained without due process. The case of Ekwenugo v. F.R.N. (2001) confirms that prolonged detention without trial is a breach of fundamental rights.

2. Torture and Inhumane Treatment

The slaps Chief Omeihekwu received from Sergeant Onoma for one week amounted to torture and inhumane treatment, violating Section 34(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution and the Anti-Torture Act 2017. Nigerian courts have ruled against similar acts in cases like Ubani v. DSS (2017), where physical abuse of a detainee was declared unconstitutional. International treaties such as the United Nations Convention Against Torture also prohibit such treatment.

3. Denial of Legal Representation

Governor Onyeukwu’s order preventing Barrister Eze Marbel from entering Omego State to represent Chief Omeihekwu was unlawful under Section 36(6)(c) of the 1999 Constitution. Every accused person has a right to a lawyer, and denying this is a violation of the right to a fair hearing, as held in Fawehinmi v. NBA (1989).

4. Violation of Privacy

The police’s decision to record Chief Omeihekwu’s phone conversations was unconstitutional. Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution protects privacy, and without a judicial order, the police had no right to carry out surveillance. The decision in Magaji v. Nigerian Army (2008) confirms that such actions are a breach of fundamental rights.

5. Restriction of Movement

After Chief Omeihekwu was released, he was restricted from traveling beyond a 25km radius. This restriction was illegal under Section 41(1) of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees freedom of movement. The Supreme Court’s decision in DSS v. Agbakoba (1999) confirms that movement restrictions must be legally justified and not imposed arbitrarily.

⸻

CONCLUSION

From the legal analysis above, it is clear that Chief Omeihekwu’s fundamental rights were grossly violated in several ways. His six-month detention without trial was unconstitutional and a clear breach of his right to personal liberty as guaranteed by Section 35(1) of the 1999 Constitution. The physical assault he suffered at the hands of Sergeant Onoma amounted to torture and inhumane treatment, which is prohibited under Section 34(1)(a) of the Constitution and the Anti-Torture Act 2017.

Furthermore, the denial of legal representation by preventing his lawyer from entering Omego State was a direct violation of Section 36(6)(c) of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing. The recording of his phone conversations by the police, without judicial authorization, was an unlawful invasion of his right to privacy under Section 37 of the Constitution. Finally, the restriction of his movement to a 25km radius after his release was unconstitutional, as it infringed on his right to freedom of movement under Section 41(1) of the Constitution.

Chief Omeihekwu has strong legal grounds to seek redress in court. He can file a Fundamental Rights Enforcement suit under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009, requesting the following reliefs:

1. A declaration that his detention, torture, denial of legal representation, violation of privacy, and movement restriction were unconstitutional.

2. An order compelling the government of Omego State to issue a public apology and lift the movement restriction.

3. Monetary compensation for the violation of his rights, in line with cases such as Ekwenugo v. F.R.N (2001) and Ubani v. DSS (2017).

The courts have consistently ruled against such constitutional violations, and Chief Omeihekwu stands a high chance of securing justice