INTRODUCTION

Two weeks ago, we took a break from this series to write on the exit of a Legal Colossus, Prof. Ben Nwabueze, San, LL.D. we shal to day continue and conclude this very vexing issue. Please read on.
WHAT THE LAW SAY?
Truth is that these unwholesome acts arise due to the ineffective and inefficient machinery, investigative measures and mechanisms prevailing in the various agencies.
It is pitiable that our criminal investigative departments have since imbibed the culture of lack of diligence and dexterity, resulting to illegal practices and violations of the fundamental rights of citizens. This makes mockery of constitutional safeguards. The culture of arrest before investigation runs contrary to so many fundamental principles of human rights in the Administration of Criminal Justice. Odemwingie Uwaifo JSC (as then was), in Fawehinmi v. IGP (2002) 7 NWLR 606 at 681, said, “In a proper investigation procedure, it is unlawful to arrest unless there is sufficient evidence upon which to charge and caution a suspect. It is completely wrong to arrest, let alone caution a suspect, before the police look for evidence implicating him.”
In NDLEA & Ors v. Bwala (2022) LPELR-56566(CA), on whether arrest and detention before investigation is unconstitutional, Justice FOLASADE AYODEJI OJO, JCA (Pp 26 – 27 Paras F – C), held:
“It has been settled in a line of judicial authorities that it is unlawful to arrest a person until there is sufficient evidence to charge and caution him and that it is unconstitutional to arrest a person pending investigation. In other words, it is unlawful to arrest a person when investigation of the alleged crime is still on and there is no prima facie evidence that the suspect has committed the offence or reasonable suspicion that he has done so. Arrest and detention before investigation is unconstitutional. See FAWEHINMI VS. INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE (2002) 7 NWLR (PT. 767)606, DURUAKU VS. NWOKE (2015) 15 NWLR (PT. 1483) 417 AND OGOR VS. ROLAND & COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (1983) 1 NCR 343.”

EMEFIELE’S RE-ARREST AFTER THE COURT ORDERED FOR HIS RELEASE
It was gathered that, after Emefiele was granted bail on terms, and his lawyers were perfecting the bail conditions, upon stepping out of the Court room, he was apprehended and arrested again for fresh charges by men of the DSS. Like they always do, he may now be charged with an entirely fresh set of offences, even without prior investigation of same. What kind of piecemeal prosecution (sorry, persecution) is this? Is this how to run a country governed by constitutional safeguards? I believe not. Or, do you think so?
In Military Governor of Lagos State v. Ojukwu (2001) FWLR (Pt. 50) 1779 at 1801, on the Rule of Law—Supremacy of Law and the need for government to conduct its affairs with regards to the law, the Supreme Court, per Andrews Atutu Obaseki, JSC (as he then was), had this to say:
“The Nigerian Constitution is founded on the rule of law the primary meaning of which is that everything must be done according to law. It means also that government should be conducted within the frame-work of recognized rules and principles which restrict discretionary power which Coke colourfully spoke of as ‘golden and straight method of law as opposed to the uncertain and crooked cord of discretion’ (see 4 Inst. 41). More relevant to the case in hand, the rule of law means that disputes as to the legality of acts of government are to be decided by judges who are wholly independent of the executive. See Wade on Administrative Law 5th Edition p. 22-27. That is the position in this country where the judiciary has been made independent of the executive by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979 as amended by Decree No. 1 of 1984 and No. 17 of 1985. The judiciary cannot shirk its sacred responsibility to the nation to maintain the rule of law. It is both in the interest of the government and all persons in Nigeria. The law should be even handed between the government and citizens.”
In UBA PLC & Ors v. Durunna (2015) LPELR-25625(CA), Frederick Ozoakpono Oho, JCA, said, “…this practice of making arrests first before looking for evidence in a manner of speaking is like placing the “cart before the horse” instead of doing it the other way round…”
The subsequent re-arrest and detention of Emefiele is in utter disobedience of the Court order granting bail to Emefiele. For how long, shall we continue to tolerate law enforcement agencies that thrive on the imprimatur of executive lawlessness? For how long? Why can they not learn to obey court orders under our tripartite separation of powers, doctrine popularized in 1748 by leading French Philosopher, Baron de Montesquieu?
In AKINYEMI v. SOYANWO & ANOR (2006) LPELR-363(SC), on whether an order of court must be obeyed, FRANCIS FEDODE TABAI, JSC, at Pp 15 – 15 Paras C – E, had this to say:
“It is a settled principle of law that every party to a suit, and indeed every citizen, has an obligation to obey the subsisting Court decision or order in the suit unless and until it is set aside. And the party’s obligation to obey the decision is without regard to his perception about the irregularity or illegality of the decision as long as it subsists. See Alhaji Audu Shugaba v. Union Bank of Nigeria Plc. (1999) 11NWLR (Pt. 627) 459 at 477 where this principle was re-enacted. See Odogwu v. Odogwu (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt. 225) 539; Nigerian Army v. Gloria Mowarin (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt. 235) 345.”
In OKEKE V. IGP & Ors (2022) LPELR-58476(CA), pronouncing on whether the Police can deprive citizens of their liberty while the case against them is still being investigated, CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME, JCA at Pp 9 – 9 Paras D – E, echoed:
“The law does not give the Police unbridled power to deprive citizens of their liberty while the case against them is still being investigated. See EVANGELIST BAYO JOHNSON V. E. A. LUFADEJU & ANOR (2002) 8 NWLR (PT. 768) PG 192 at 218 B – C.”
CONCLUSION
It is clear to me that Mr. Godwin Emefiele’s rights have been grossly and wantonly violated with impunity under the thin guise of investigation. What manner of investigation? The order of the Court granting him bail has since been rendered futile by his subsequent re-arrest and detention. The DSS’ wanton acts of brigandage throws us back into the ignoble Hobbessian State of Nature, where life was short, solitary, nasty and brutish. So disgusting. So shameful. So horrific.
Godwin Emefiele’s offences (and Bawa’s, if any), as already charged are bailable (see sections 35 and 36 of the 1999 Constitution as amended). Bawa’s offences, we still do not even know. By the way, who is afraid of Emefiele? Who is afraid of Bawa? And why? I do not know. Or, do you? Both Emefiele and Bawa have presumption of innocence enuring in their favour (section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution as amended). See DAUDA V. FRN (2018) 10 NWLR (pt. 1616) at 169 and NKIE v. FRN (2014) LPELR-22877 (SC). Two options are available to this government that is fast donning the garb of military, sorry, civilian dictatorship: charge Emefiele and Bawa to court; or RELEASE them promptly and unconditionally. Please, let my people go. Let Emefiele and Bawa go (Exodus 8:1). (The end).

THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK
“There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice”. (Montesquieu).