The police, on Tuesday, told the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)’s independent investigative panel on violation of rights by the defunct SARS and other police units that the Police Act gave them the power to investigate, arrest and prosecute any person allegedly involved in criminal breach of trust and cheating.
Counsel for the police, Fidelis Ogbobe, stated this at the adoption of written addresses in the petition brought before the panel by Engineer Nicholas Ogbedo Azuka, marked 2020/IIP-SARS/ABJ/102, in which the petitioner alleged abuse of office and arbitrary arrest.
The petitioner had joined Inspectors Ismaila and Henry of the defunct SARS, FCT; a couple, Mr King Uzoma Nwachukwu and Mrs Victoria Nwachukwu; defunct SARS FCT; Commissioner of Police, FCT and the Inspector-General of Police as respondents.
Responding to Azuka’s written address filed by his counsel, Henry Ebu, Ogbobe told the panel chaired by a retired Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Suleiman Galadima (retd) that the police had the power effect arrest while investigating criminal breach of trust as in the instance case in which the couple alleged that the petitioner defrauded them while trying to purchase a house from him.
According to the counsel for the police, from the evidence before the panel, there was a valid criminal allegation against Azuka for which the police arrested and detained him.
Ogbobe cited Section 66 of the Police Act, which he disclosed empowered the police to deal with such matters.
He added that from the evidence of the couple, who are third and fourth respondents in the petition, shows that there is a valid criminal allegation against Engineer Azuka.
Responding to the petitioner’s position that the police lack the power to recover money from him during their investigation of the alleged criminal breach of trust, Ogbobe told the panel that the police were empowered by the law to investigate cases of breach of trust which culminated into criminal acts.
On Azuka’s contention that the money recovered from him by the police in the course of investigation should be returned to him, Ogbobe argued that the Supreme Court had held in the case of Ajiboye versus the Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN) that courts, and by extension panel, should not allow any person to take a benefit of his crime.
He, therefore, urged the panel to order the petitioner to return the remaining N2.3 million alleged proceeds of crime still with him.
In their oral submission before the panel, Mr and Mrs Nwachukwu, who were not represented by a lawyer, said that they filed and served their written address in respect of the matter on all the parties.
Though not a lawyer, Mr Nwachukwu, who addressed the panel on behalf of himself and his wife, said they wanted Azuka to balance them the sum of N2.3million, having earlier willingly refunded the sum N1.4million.
He, however, prayed the panel to order compensation of N5million in their favour against Azuka, submitting that, “We are suffering as a result of the debt and we do not have money to hire a lawyer to defend us.”
Earlier in his submission before the panel, counsel for the petitioner, Henry Ebu urged the panel to determine whether Inspector Henry of defunct SARS, FCT, played the proper role expected of a police officer in the matter and to also establish whether Mr and Mrs Nwachukwu are entitled to the reliefs they sought before the panel.
Ebu pleaded with the panel to ensure that officers deserving punishment in the case did not hide under the cover of the police but fished out for appropriate punishment, including dismissal where necessary.
The petitioner’s counsel told the 11-man panel that such measures would serve as a deterrent to other police officers in the field of operation.
After all, parties made their submission, Justice Galadima adjourned the petition for the panel’s report.
YOU SHOULD NOT MISS THESE HEADLINES FROM NIGERIAN TRIBUNE
FALSE! Yoruba Not An Official Language In Brazil
Claim: A national newspaper and multiple online platforms claim Brazil has adopted Yoruba as its official language and that the language would be included in primary and secondary schools curriculum.
Verdict: The claim is false. The content of the article published by these online platforms is not new; it has been recirculated several times and has been debunked.