LawPavilion Online


Back

COL. MOHAMMED SAMBO DASUKI (RTD) v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & ORS

(2018) LPELR-43897(SC)

In The Supreme Court of Nigeria

On Friday, the 2nd day of March, 2018

SC.617/2016(CONSOLIDATED)


Before Their Lordships

MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria

JOHN INYANG OKORO Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria

CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria

AMINA ADAMU AUGIE Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria

EJEMBI EKO Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria


Between

COL. MOHAMMED SAMBO DASUKI (RTD)
-SC.617/2016
-SC.618/2016 - Appellant(s)

AND

1. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
2. SHUAIBU SALISU
3. AMINU BABA KUSA
4. ACACIA HOLDINGS LTD
5. RELIANCE REFERRAL HOSPITAL LIMITED
-SC.617/2016

AND

1. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
2. BASHIR YUGUDA
3. SHUAIBU SALISU
4. DALHATU INVESTMENT LIMITED
5. SAGIR ATTAHIRU
5. ATTAHIRU DALHATU BAFARWA
-SC.618/2016 - Respondent(s)


Other Citations

; ;


Summary

INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on Constitutional Law.

FACTS:
The appellant and 5 others were arraigned before H.B. Yusuf, J. of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory on an information alleging various allegations of criminal breach of trust, fraud, dishonest misappropriation of monies belonging to the Federal Government of Nigeria etc.
???
Upon arraignment the trial Court, on 18th December, 2015, granted the appellant bail on terms. The appellant met the bail terms, and was consequently released from the Federal Prison, Kuje, where he was held on remand on 29th December, 2015. The order releasing the appellant from the prison custody was carried out by the Controller of the Kuje Prison. The appellant was immediately re-arrested and taken away by officers of the Directorate of State Services [DSS].

On 12th January, 2016, in reaction to his re-arrest, the appellant filed a motion praying the trial Court for the following orders:
1. AN ORDER prohibiting the complainant from further prosecuting the instant charge or any other charge against the 1st Defendant, or seeking any form of indulgence before this Honourable Court or any other Court in Nigeria, except and unless it complies with the Order of this Court made on 18th December, 2015, the said Order which remains valid for all intents and purposes, having not been set aside by any Appellate Court.
2. AN ORDER discharging the 1st Defendant/Applicant of all the offences contained in the instant charge, the said Charge which cannot be lawfully prosecuted by the Complainant who is in brazen disobedience of a subsisting Order of this Honourable Court made on 18th December, 2015.
Alternatively
3. A Mandatory Order directing the complainant who acts through the Department of State Services/EFCC and other enforcement agencies, to immediately produce the 1st Defendant in Court, by which this Honourable Court may give directives as it considers appropriate, for the administration of justice in accordance with the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015.
Alternatively
4. AN ORDER staying further proceedings in this Charge until the 1st Defendant/Appellant exhausts the remedies available to him in law for the enforcement of his right to liberty, the said right which had already been preserved by the Order of 18th December, 2015.
5. And for such Orders or other Orders this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this case.

The trial Court, after hearing the parties and considering their various positions, dismissed the application having come to the conclusion that it did not make any order against the re-arrest of the appellant and that the 1st respondent was not in contempt of Court. Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which appeal was dismissed. Appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:
The following issues for determination were resolved in the appeal:
1. Whether by hearing the appeal and adjourning judgment to 4pm of the same day, the Court of Appeal did not by that action of undue haste to deliver judgment breach the Appellant's right to fair hearing, particularly the hallowed principle that "Justice hurried is Justice denied" and in the circumstances thereof could it be said that there was no miscarriage of Justice?
2. Whether the adoption by the Court of Appeal of the sole issue formulated by Respondent before it as opposed to the Appellant's 3 Issues tied to the 4 grounds of appeal did not amount to both a non-consideration and misapprehension of the issues put forth by him for adjudication and determination and in consequence therefore breached Appellants right to fair hearing and occasioned a miscarriage of Justice?
3. Whether in the resolution of the sole issue adopted by the Court below was right, when it affirmed the decision of Hon. Hussaini Baba J of the High Court of the FCT where he refused to give effect to his order releasing the Appellant on bail when it was apparent that it was the Respondent acting through one of its agencies - the Directorate of State Services in conjunction with the EFCC that was responsible for the flouting of the Court's order?
4. Was the Court of Appeal not in error when it affirmed the decision of the High Court of the FCT that the Complainant (FGN) was not in disobedience of lawful orders(s) and whether the Courts below were right in indulging such a contemptnor who was seeking indulgences before it, while still in contempt and indeed whether the Complainant can be granted audience in this matter while it is still in contempt?
DECISION/HELD:
In the final analysis, the appeal was found lacking in merits and was dismissed. The case was remitted to the trial Court for accelerated hearing.


Read Full Judgment