The Court of Appeal in Ibadan has set aside the judgement of an Oyo State High Court, which awarded N20billion damages to Yoruba self-determination activist, Chief Sunday Adeyemo, otherwise known as Sunday Igboho.
In its judgement read by the Justice of the Court of Appeal (JCA), Justice Muslim Hassan, in the appeal by the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) Department of State Services (DSS) and Director, Department of State Services in Oyo State, against the judgement of the Oyo State High Court, the appellate court held that Justice Ladiran Akintola acted on the wrong principles of law to award N20billion damages to Igboho.
Justice Akintola had on September 17, 2021, awarded N20billion as damages against AGF Malami and the DSS over the invasion of Igboho’s Soka Ibadan residence, on July 1.
But the JCA Hassan held that the lower court judgment was not supported by any evidence, but by two affidavits.
He further held that Justice Akintola could not assess damages using his own conceived parameters, saying that there was no evidence that quoted the value of damages at Igboho’s residence.
The JCA also held that there was no evidence including autopsy to support the claim that two people were killed at the activist’s residence during the invasion.
Justice Hassan further held that the lower court assumed jurisdiction of the case to look at the enforcement of fundamental human rights suits filed by Igboho without looking at the merit of the case.
According to the JCA, the lower court should not have assumed jurisdiction of the case without looking at its merit.
The judge added that the case did not qualify under the enforcement of human rights on the grounds that there is a threat to national security.
He said, “When there is a threat to national security, the enforcement of fundamental right is secondary. I have read the judgement of the lower court and Article 20:1 of the African Charter on self determination and Article 3 and 4 of the United Nations Charter on rights of the indigenous people which the judgement was based upon. A statute cannot be treated in isolation.
“When considering a statute, the entire provision should be considered and not a section. The same charter talks about the sovereignty of a nation. Neglecting Article 27, 28, 29 of the African charter will not give proper interpretation to it.
“Article 3 and 4 of the United Nations charter have not been domesticated in Nigeria. No international treaty shall have a force of law without being treated by the National Assembly; and international treaty does not become binding unless enacted into law by the National Assembly.
“Therefore, the United Nations declaration is not enforceable in Nigeria. The judge acted on wrong principles of law and the action of the respondent constitutes a threat to unity of Nigeria. The respondent has no right to take up arms against Nigeria.
The appellants had anchored the appeal on six grounds of appeal.
They also urged the court to determine: “if the trial judge was right to determine the issue of fundamental human right; “If the trial judge was right to assume jurisdiction of the case against a Federal Government agency; “If the originating motion of the respondent was competent; “If the respondent was right to take up arms against the government in his quest for self determination; “If the trial judge was right to enter judgement in favour of the respondent; “And if the trial judge was right to award damages to the respondent.”
The appellate court resolved issues 1, 4, 5 and 6 in favour of the AGF and other appellants, and resolved issues 2 and 3 in favour of Igboho.
The Court of Appeal subsequently held that the lower court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the suit and set aside the judgement.
The appellate court further directed the parties to bear their costs.
