The family of former National
Security Adviser (NSA), Col. Sambo Dasuki (rtd), who has been in detention
since 2015, has asked the President Muhammadu Buhari led-Federal Government to
respect several pending court rulings which granted their son bail.
The ex-NSA has been in the
custody of Department of State Services (DSS).
Speaking to PRNigeria in Abuja on
Sunday, the family members maintained that the President should consider the
latest Appeal Court’s ‘landmark’ judgement, having disobeyed previous judgements.
“We are anxiously waiting for
President Buhari’s government to obey the latest order of the Court of Appeal
by releasing our breadwinner”, a member said.
“We pray that with the unanimous
judgment of a panel of the Appeal for Dasuki’s immediate release, the
government will obey the order coming from a higher court in the land.”
Meanwhile, a group of
well-wishers and sympathizers have offered to stand as sureties for the
erstwhile NSA in the latest court judgement at the Appeal Court.
This followed declaration by the
Court of Appeal in Abuja that the detention of Dasuki was illegal, unlawful,
unconstitutional and ordered his release on conditional bail.
The appellate court held that the
DSS and its Director General acted outside their constitutional powers on the
long period of the detention of a Nigerian citizen and imposed a fine of N5m on
them to be paid to Dasuki as compensation for breach of his fundamental right.
In a unanimous judgment of a
3-man panel of Justices of the court led by Justice Tinuade Akomolafe-Wilson,
the court held that the fundamental right of the ex NSA had been brazenly and
brutally breached by the prolonged detention without trial in any fresh charge
or investigation contrary to the provisions of the 1999 constitution.
In the lead judgment of Justice
Akomolafe- Wilson, Dasuki was subsequently admitted to bail in the sum of N100m
and two sureties in the like sum.
The judgment, endorsed by Justice
Peter Olabisi Ige and Justice Emmanuel Akomaye Agim, was made public at the
weekend.
It read: “The two sureties shall
be serving public servants not below the status of level 16 officers in either
state or public service of the Federal or any of its agencies and shall produce
a valid documents of his or her status to the registrar of the federal high
court in Abuja.
“Each surety must be resident
within the jurisdiction of the high court and other physical address must be
verified by the court registrar and shall also produce two recent passport size
photographs in addition to deposing to affidavit of means.
“The sureties each shall furnish
evidence of ownership of property in the Federal Capital Territory worth
N100m”.
It would be recalled that a
Federal High Court Judge, Ijeoma Ojukwu, had on July 2 2018, admitted Dasuki to
bail on conditions the NSA complained to be too harsh and stringent for him his
family to perfect especially deposit of N100m to the high court registrar by
his sureties before he can be released on bail.
The Appeal Court Justices,
however, set aside the harsh and stringent bail conditions of the judge for
being outlandish and replaced them with the fresh ones.
The court commended the findings
of facts by the judge that Dasuki had been dehumanized by his prolonged
detention but disagreed with her on the refusal to award damages as
compensation to assuage the injuries inflicted on the ex NSA.
“In my avowed view the learned
trial judge misconceived the prayer of the appellant and erroneously
interpreted relief 4 for bail as an alternative prayer to relief 7 for
damages”, Justice Akomolafe- Wilson read.
“This error occasioned a
miscarriage of Justice by the failure to award damages which is a natural
consequence for the finding that the fundamental right of the appellant has
been grossly violated; upon which the court heavily deprecated the action of
the 1st and 2nd Respondents.
“The established principle of law
as amplified in plethora of authorities is to the effect that award of damages
must flow naturally once the court find that the fundamental right of an
individual has been breached with legal justification. The compensation is
automatic, and ought to be granted, even when the aggrieved party does not pray
for compensation.
“The judiciary is the main
institution charged with the responsibility for the protection and enforcement
of human rights. The fundamental rights intentionally entrenched in our
constitution must therefore be jealously guarded and protected through
practical pronouncements of reliefs granted by the courts so as to assuage
citizens whose fundamental rights have been violated.
“Under no guise or any circumstance
whatsoever should the court shy away from the hallowed role. It is common
knowledge that a threat to the right of one individual is a threat to the right
of all. Democracy, which we value exceedingly in this country cannot be
successful if respect for human rights and constitution is wobbling.
“The point I am putting across is
that effective judicial protection of human rights is an indispensable
component of order and good governance so as not to weaken the confidence of
the people in seeking for judicial enforcements and remedies of their rights.
“I am conscious of the fact that
the lower court heavily deprecated the act of the 1st and 2ndrespondents for
the unlawful continued detention of the appellant especially where three
courts, including the ECOWAS court had impugned their action of the violation
of the appellant right.
“The respondents neither
cross-appealed nor filled a respondent’s notice on this issue. The decision of
the trial court on the finding that the appellant’s fundamental rights were
unlawfully breached is therefore extant. I will therefore say no more on this
point.
“I am conscious of the fact that
the issue of bail, its grant and the fixing of terms are entirely at the
discretion of the court. Such discretion must however be exercised judicially
and judiciously. Each case must be determined on its own peculiar
circumstances.
“In the instant case, the
appellant had previously been granted bail by three different courts. The
conditions for the bail have been fulfilled and there is no incidence of breach
of the conditions granted. The law is settled that the main function of bail is
simply to ensure the presence of an accused person at his trial.
“The most important consideration
in fixing the terms for bail therefore is whether the applicant will not escape
justice. The law is also settled that stringent and severe conditions are
granted only where there is the likelihood that the applicant might jump bail.
Generally, it is against the spirit of the constitution to impose excessive and
stringent conditions for bail, as that will be tantamount to refusal of bail.
“In this case, the trial court
made an order for the retention of the appellant’s international passport and
also found that the likelihood of him jumping bail is “short-circuited,” where
the likelihood of the appellant jumping bail is obviated, the bail conditions
ought to have been on more liberal terms.
“In the circumstances of this
case, especially having regard to the findings of the court as analyzed in the
foregoing, the condition for the deposit of one hundred million naira by the
appellant’s surety as deposit for his bail is most unnecessary punitive,
onerous and unjustifiable. There is no conceivable reason for such oppressive
bail condition as granted by the trial court.”
Click to signup for FREE news updates, latest information and hottest gists everyday
Advertise on NigerianEye.com to reach thousands of our daily users
No comments
Post a Comment
Kindly drop a comment below.
(Comments are moderated. Clean comments will be approved immediately)
Advert Enquires - Reach out to us at NigerianEye@gmail.com