Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Fawehinmi V. IG Police (2002) CLR 5(j) (SC)

Judgement delivered on May 10th 2002

Brief

  • Prerogative orders
  • Mandamus
  • Police Powers of investigation
  • S.308(1) 1999 Constitution
  • Administrative actions
  • Ejusdem generic rule
  • Police discretion to investigate or not

Facts

By an originating summons filed by the Appellant on 7 October, 1999 at the Federal High Court, Lagos, he sought inter alia an order of mandamus to compel the Respondents to investigate criminal allegations which he made against Governor Bola Ahmed Tinubu of Lagos State. It is unnecessary to go into the details of the said allegations, or of the procedural skirmishes at the trial court, except to say that on 14 December, 1999, Egbo-Egbo, J., who presided dismissed the summons upon a preliminary objection raised that by virtue of section 308 of the 1999 Constitution, the Governor enjoyed immunity from being investigated in respect of the said criminal allegations.

On the view taken in respect of section 308 of the Constitution that there was immunity against investigation, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division. The Respondents cross-appealed against the court's findings as to the admissibility of certain documents (exhibits GF1, GF2 and GF3] and also as to the locus standi of the Appellant to institute the action.

On 5 June, 2000, the Court of Appeal in a considered judgment concluded;

  • 1
    that although the Respondents [the police] have a discretion in matters of crime investigation, they were not precluded by section 308 of the 1999 Constitution from investigating allegations of crime committed by persons occupying the offices named therein;
  • 2
    that in the circumstances of this case no order of mandamus compelling the Respondents to investigate the allegations made against Governor Bola Ahmed Tinubu would be made; and
  • 3
    that the Appellant had the locus standi to institute the action. As to exhibits GF1, GF2 and GF3 in question which were admitted in evidence by the trial court, the view of the court below was clearly that being uncertified public documents, they were inadmissible.

Being dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

    Issues in Main Appeal

  • 1.
    Whether the court of appeal was right in refusing to make an order of...
    Read More