Apprehension has once again rent the air over appeal court order, granting the detained former National Security Adviser (NSA), Col. Sambo Dasuki, bail.
The apprehension arose from fears whether the federal government will obey the latest order.
The Appeal Court in Abuja declared that the detention of Dasuki since December 29, 2015 by the Department of State Security (DSS) was illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional.
In the Certified True Copy of the judgment sighted by this reporter, the appellate court ordered his immediate release on conditional bail.
A fine of N5m was awarded against the secret police as compensation for breach of Dasuki’s fundamental rights from the long detention.
The appellate court held that the DSS and its Director General acted outside their constitutional powers.
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 rights 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.
Dasuki was subsequently admitted to bail in the sum of N100m and two sureties in the like sum.
The two sureties shall be serving public servants not below the status of level 16 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.
Other conditions include, 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
The appeal court ordered that the DSS and its Director General should not detain Dasuki again and that whenever he was required on any allegation, it must be conducted within the working days and from 9am to 6pm for him to go home.
The court also ordered that the international passport of the ex-NSA shall remain with the Deputy Chief Register of the high court for the time being.
A Federal High court judge, Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu, had on July 2 2018, admitted Dasuki to bail on conditions that he (Dasuki) complained to be too harsh and stringent for him and his family to perfect, especially the deposit of N100m to the high court registrar by his sureties before he can be released on bail.
The appeal court justices set aside the stringent bail conditions of the judge and gave fresh conditions.
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”.
“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 rights 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.”
The appeal court therefore ordered that Dasuki must be allowed to go home on bail upon his perfection of the fresh bail conditions.
The judgment was endorsed by Justice Peter Olabisi Ige and Justice Emmanuel Akomaye Agim