Justice E. O. Odebala of the Delta state High Court sitting in Ozoro has imposed a fine of N310 million against the Nigeria Police Force and its officers for unlawful arrest, harassment and detention of a lawyer, Otedjere Jude.
Justice Odebala awarded N300 million as compensation against the police for unlawful arrest and detention of the lawyer from Sept. 29, 2025 to Sept. 30 2025.
The court also awarded ₦10 million as cost of litigation in favour of the applicant.
In the certified true copy of the judgment obtained the case arose from a fundamental rights enforcement application filed by the lawyer against the police.
Respondents in the case are several police officers in Kwale; the Commissioner of Police, Delta State; the Inspector-General of Police; the Nigeria Police Force and the Police Service Commission.
The lawyer approached the court through an originating motion filed on Nov. 28, 2025, pursuant to Sections 33(1), 34, 35, 37, 40, 41 and 46(1 & 2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), Article 6 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009.
He challenged his arrest and detention at Kwale Police Station between Sept. 29, 2025 and Sept. 30, 2025, describing the action of the police as unconstitutional and a violation of his fundamental rights.
He sought the order of the court awarding N500 million as damages for his unlawful arrest and detention and N20 million cost of litigation against the respondents .
In the judgment, Justice Odebala held that the actions of the police amounted to a gross violation of the applicant’s rights.
“I held that the arrest and detention of the applicant by the Police at Kwale police station on Sept. 29, 2025 to Sept. 39, 2025 without justification amounts to infringement of his liberty and freedom of movement.
“The applicant did not commit any offence to warrant the respondent to arrest and detain the applicant or take any step that is inconsistent with the fundamental rights of the applicant as guaranteed and protected under the 1999 Constitution.
“Assuming but without conceding that the applicant was legally arrested pursuant to Section 35 (1) (c) of the 1999 Constitution the Respondents still flagrantly detained the applicant for unsustainable reasons.
‘While the Constitution provides for arrest on reasonable suspicion, such suspicion does not, I hold, amount to detention in anticipation of an arrest.’”
“It is hereby declared that the arrest and detention of the applicant at the prompting and instigation of the 1st Respondent without any justification amounts to an infraction of the liberty and freedom of movement of the applicant and same is wrongful, unconstitutional, ultra vires and of no moment whatsoever,” the court ruled.
The judge noted that none of the respondents filed any counter-affidavit to challenge the facts placed before it by the applicant.
“I must state here with alacrity that none of the respondents filed a counter-affidavit to this instant application,”
