IN THE HIGH COURT OF IMO STATE OF NIGERIA
IN THE OWERRI JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, OWERRI
ON THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: – HON. JUSTICE I. M. NJAKA
HOW/250/2022
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA MEMBER REPRESENTING THE GOOD PEOPLE OF ISIALA MBANO, ONUIMO AND OKIGWE IN THE OKIGWE NORTH (HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE) FEDERAL CONSTITUENCY IN THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA BY INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF WOMEN LAWYERS FIDA (NIGERIA)
BETWEEN
INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF WOMEN
LAWYERS FIDA (NIGERIA) (Suing on behalf
of Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha) ……………………………………………………………………………..APPLICANT
AND
MR. KINGSLEY AZUBUIKE IBEZIM ………………………………………………………………………….RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
The Applicant in this application prays for the following:
A. A DECLARATION that the intimidation, harassment, threat, criminal assault, attempt of physical attack and threat to the right to personal liberty and integrity of HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA without commission of any offence known to law is ipso facto illegal and a deliberate violation of the constitutionally protected rights of HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA under section 33(1) 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended and Article 4 of the African Chapter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (Cap 10) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.
B. A DECLARATION that the intimidation, harassment, threat of criminal assault, physical attack and threat to right to the personal liberty and integrity of HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA without commission of any offence known to law is ipso facto illegal and a deliberate violation of the constitutionally protected rights of the HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA under section 33(1) 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended and Article 4 of the African Chapter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (Cap 10) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.
C. A DECLARATION that the intimidation, harassment, threat to disrupt any meeting, rallies organized by the supporters of HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA on her behalf in her Federal Constituency without commission of any offence known to law amount to deliberate violation of the constitutionally protected rights of HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA under section 40 & 41 of 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended and Article 11 of the African Chapter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (Cap 10) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.
D. A DECLARATION that the intimidation, harassment, threat, criminal assault, attempt of physical attack and threat to the right to personal liberty and integrity of HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA without commission of any offence known to law is ipso facto illegal and a deliberate violation of the constitutionally protected rights of the HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA under section 35(1) 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended and Article 4 of the African Chapter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (Cap 10) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.
E. AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the Respondent including his agents and privies by whatsoever name called from harassing, molesting, intimidations, abducting, threatening the life, and right to peaceful procession without recourse to due process of law especially HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA Fundamental Rights as enshrined and guaranteed in chapter IV of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and the African Chapter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (Cap 10) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.
F. AN ORDER directing and compelling the Respondent to tender a written apology to HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA as provided for under section 35(6) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and to cause same to be published in two national newspaper and any other prominent newspaper in Imo State. GENERAL DAMAGES of N100,000,000.00 (One Hundred Million Naira Only) against the Respondent and for same to be paid by the Respondent to HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA for the violation of her Fundamental Human Rights to life been threatened, right to personal liberty, freedom of movement, right to peaceful assembly and association, right to dignity of human person and right to respect for her life and the integrity of her person under the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and under the African Chapter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (Cap 10) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.
G. EXEMPLARY AND AGGRAVATED DAMAGES of Twenty Million Naira (N20,000,000.00) against the Respondent.
GROUNDS UPON WHICH RELIEFS ARE SOUGHT
1. That the intimidation, harassment, threat, criminal assault, attempt of physical attack, threat to right to personal liberty and integrity of HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA without commission of any offence known to law is ipso facto illegal and a deliberate violation of the constitutionally protected rights of HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA under section 33(1) 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended and Article 4 of the African Chapter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (Cap 10) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.
2. That the intimidation, harassment, threat, criminal assault, attempt of physical attack and threat to the right to personal liberty and integrity of HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA without commission of any offence known to law amount to deliberate violation of the constitutionally protected rights of the HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA under section 34(1) 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended and Article 4 of the African Chapter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (Cap 10) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.
3. That the intimidation, harassment, threat to disrupt any meeting, rallies organized by the supporters of HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA on her behalf in her Federal Constituency without commission of any offence known to law amount to deliberate violation of the constitutionally protected rights of HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA under section 40 & 41 of 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended and Article 11 of the African Chapter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (Cap 10) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.
4. That the intimidation, harassment, threat, criminal assault, attempt of physical attack and threat to the right to personal liberty and integrity of HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA without commission of any offence known to law is ipso facto illegal and a deliberate violation of the constitutionally protected rights of HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA under section 35(1) 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended and Article 4 of the African Chapter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (Cap 10) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.
5. That the HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA was denied her fundamental rights to personal liberty, right to life, dignity of her human person, right to association assembly, freedom of movement and association.
6. That there is no justification for prompting and instigating the public more particularly the good people of ISIALA MBANO, ONUIMO AND OKIGWE IN THE OKIGWE NORTH (HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE) FEDERAL CONSTITUENCY against HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA without a lawful reason.
7. That the treatment meted out to HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA is contrary to Articles 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 of the African Chapter on Human and Peoples’ Right (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (Cap 10) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.
8. That HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA is entitled to protection from the unlawful and unconstitutional interference with her Fundamental Rights ‘under the 1999 Constitution and under the African Chapter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (Cap 10) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF APPLICANT’S ORIGINATING SUMMONS is deposed by KAREEM HENRY. He deposed: I am the litigation secretary with Egwuaba Reuben Law Office, the Legal Team representing the Applicant on behalf of Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha member representing the good people of Isiala Mbano, Onuimo and Okigwe in the Okigwe North (House of Representative) Federal Constituency in the National Assembly of the Federal Republic of Nigeria herein, by virtue of which I am conversant with the facts deposed in this Affidavit. I have consent and Authority of the Applicant to depose to this affidavit through the following National Officers of the association: (a) Mrs. Amina Suzanah Agbaje – Country Vice-President/National President of the association (b)Eliana Martins – National Secretary of the association (c) Undidi Aneke – Imo State Chairperson of the association.
On the 10TH of March, 2022, at about 11:00am at our office situate at Plot 108 Idris Gidado Street, Wuye, Abuja, during the office briefing on this suit, I as informed by Mrs. Amina Suzanah Agbaje – Country Vice-President/National President of the association and Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha and verily believe them that the Applicant is named as International Federation Of Women Lawyers Fida (Nigeria) with its headquarters in the Court of Appeal, Three Arms Zone off Shehu Shagari Way, Abuja. FIDA is a non-profit, non-governmental organization made up of women called to the practice of law in Nigeria. FIDA is the acronym for the Spanish name “Federacion Internacional de Abogadas”. FIDA Nigeria was formed in 1964 as a member of FIDA International and currently has branches in 36 states of the federation plus the FCT Abuja. FIDA has been carrying out her mandate in Nigeria through the efforts and expertise of her over 3,500 members working in the states, with a vision to realize a just, peaceful and equitable Nigerian society where women and children’s rights, interests are guaranteed, in which they have the freedom to choose and live their own future.
Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha is a member of the Federal House of Representative, representing the good people of Isiala Mbano, Onuimo And Okigwe In The Okigwe North (House Of Representative) Federal Constituency In The National Assembly Of The Federal Republic Of Nigeria whose life is been endangered as a result of various infringement to her right as a woman and as a citizen of Nigeria.
The Respondent is an ex-husband of HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA and they have been separated for over Fifteen years and the Respondent has re-married up to four times. His current wife is the fourth wife after he separated from HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA. The Respondent left HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA with the children and thereafter she labored through thick and thin to bring up the children alone and also proceeded to university to sponsor herself and became a graduate.
She registered as a financial member of All Progressive Congress (APC) and participated actively to the success the party has achieved today. She was sponsored by her political party to contest the Federal House of Representative election and thereafter won same and became a member of the National Assembly representing the good people of Isiala Mbano, Onuimo and Okigwe in the Okigwe North (House of Representative) Federal Constituency in the National Assembly of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Since her inauguration as a member of the National Assembly of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Respondent has been infringing on her right to life by intimidation, threat, criminal assault, physical attack, right to personal liberty and integrity of her person. To her greatest surprise on the 29th December, 2021 at the private residence of HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA, the Respondent invaded the community in Ewuru Umunachi Isiala Mbano Local Government Area and threatened HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA on the ground that he would do everything within his powers to frustrate her political ambition. He threatened to physically assault her before she was rescued from the Respondent. The Respondent proceeded to send all manner of threats via voice notes to HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA on social media communication platform popularly known as WhatsApp.
The Respondent also went on various social media platforms including but not limited to a whatsapp group containing members of the good people Isiala Mbano, Onuimo and Okigwe in the Okigwe North (House of Representative) Federal Constituency blackmailing, assassinating and attacking the character and life of HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA, castigating and discrediting all her effort in the Federal Constituency. The Respondent also went to various communities discrediting and threatening that HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA. The Respondent on most occasion in the presence of the supporters and member of HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA political party (APC) in the Federal Constituency threaten physical assault, violent attack, verbal abuse and all in an attempt to make her worthless before her supporters and the good of the Federal Constituency. Through verbal abuse and attempt to assassinate the person of HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA, the Respondent boasted through various platform that he will attack HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA and her supporters any time there is a meeting of her supporters who are members of Progressive Congress (APC) under Isiala Mbano, Onuimo And Okigwe In The OKigwe North (House Of Representative) Federal Constituency. He boosted that he will disrupt any of their meeting, rallies, campaign and procession if organized On favour of HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA on the ground that she did not attend the burial of one of his relatives who died some months ago. The Respondent is a person who does not have value for women and boasted through various platforms that he will continue to torment HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA and frustrate her future political career for no just cause. Part of the Respondent’s threat is that he will demolish or destroy some of the notable project carried out by HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA for the good of Isiala Mbano, Onuimo and Okigwe in the Okigwe North (House Of Representative) Federal Constituency without a just cause.
The unprovoked acts of attempted cruelty in beating, intimidating, assaulting, physical abuse and threat to the life of HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA by the Respondent has affected her liberty and freedom of movement in the entire Federal Constituency. The Respondent constantly boasts to disrespect, insult, assault, and carryon all forms of ill treatment and aggression boosted the restricted freedom of movement and a threat to life of HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA. The Respondent succeeded in putting HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA in a state of pain, emotional and psychological trauma and depression. The Respondent archaic way of reasoning has made him act in a ways that is contrary to societal standards of living and more so he believes that a woman must be intimidated and oppressed without a just a cause. HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA no longer feel safe as the Respondent has engaged very strange and unknown people with lies to foment trouble against HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA and put her in a psychologically, mentally and emotional worried state within her Federal Constituency. The Respondent is very arrogant, disrespectful to HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA and that has made her to develop unnecessary fear and apprehension. The Respondent has also threatened to make videos and post same on various social media platforms all in an attempt to ridicule the name and integrity of HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA in the sight of the members of Isiala Mbano, Onuimo And Okigwe in the Okigwe North (House of Representative) Federal Constituency as well as members of the general public. The Respondent also threatens the right of HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA to peaceful assembly and association as she can no longer as a result of the fear of any mishap freely assemble and gather the people of her Constituency for the purpose of interacting and bringing closer to the people of her Constituency the dividends of democracy without fear of such gathering being disrupted by the Respondent.
The application is accompanied by written address wherein the counsel formulated issue for determination as:
“Whether having regard to the facts and materials supplied by the Applicant in support of his claim against the backdrop of the current state of the law, this Honourable Court ought not to find in favour of the Applicant.
According to the counsel, the case before this Court is centered on threat to the Fundamental Rights of a citizen of this country. Counsel relied on all the paragraphs of the affidavit in support of our Originating Motion in this case. The Respondent has no right whatsoever to threaten the life of Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha Member Representing the good people of Isiala Mbano, Onuimo and Okigwe in the Okigwe North (House Of Representative) Federal Constituency in the National Assembly of The Federal Republic of Nigeria. This Application is brought by International Federation of Women Lawyers FIDA (Nigeria) to protect the rights of HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA from any cruelty planned by the Respondent as shown in the Affidavit in support of this Application. Reference is made to Section 46 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), DIAMOND BANK v. OPARA & ORS (2018) LPELR- 43907(SC) the Supreme Court held thus;
It is submitted that by virtue of section 35(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), no person shall be denied his personal liberty except as stipulated therein.
For any person to be denied his personal liberty, it must be for one of the reasons stipulated in section 35 as no one ought to be denied his liberty on technical or other frivolous grounds, as the personal liberty of a person is so fundamental. See the case of EKANEM vs. A.I.G.P (Zone 7) (2008) 5 NWLR (PT.l079) 97 at 110 Paras. C-E Per Omage J.C.A. , ONYIRIOHA vs. I.G.P (2009) 3 NWLR (pt. 1128) 342 at 362 Paras. H
It is submitted that section 33(1), 34(1) 1999 Constitution, Article 4 of the African Chapter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (Cap 10) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990 makes provision for a sanction in case of any breach of section 33(1), section 40 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) against any person. Referred to Honourable Ahmad Vs. Sokoto State House of Assembly (2002) 44 WRN 52 at 73, WAEC v. ADEYANJU (2008) LPELR-3467(SC). It is submitted that from the decision of the Supreme Court in the mentioned suit, a fundamental right enforcement proceedings can be initiated for the purpose of securing the enforcement of the inalienable rights of a person, so that such rights will not be tempered with by another. Relied on EMEKA v. OKOROAFOR & ORS (2017) LPELR-41738 (SC)
It is submitted that the series of threatening messages issued to HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA by the Respondent amounts to her constitutionally protected right being likely to be contravened and therefore such rights ought to be secured and the acts of the Respondent in this suit amounts to a breach of her fundamental rights and therefore the provisions of Section 46 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (As Amended) guaranteeing this application.
According to the counsel, from the depositions in the Affidavit in Support of the Originating motion, it can be clearly seen that the rights of HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA are being threatened by the Respondent and the Court has a duty to prevent the rights of HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA from being breached by the Respondent as can be seen from a plethora of cases as sighted
There is also affidavit of urgency
COUNTER AFFIDAVIT TO APPLICATION FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF FOUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS is deposed to by Apostle Kingsley Azubuike Ibezim, the Respondent in this Application. He deposed: I was highly shocked to the marrow to receive a copy of the instant suit wherein I found myself as a respondent when indeed there is no issue at all between me and the applicant-Princess Miriam Ibezim (nee Onuaha) who is my wife but whom the FIDA choose to present in the instant suit as Princess Miriam Onuoha as if she has seized to be my wife.
Even though my wife- Princess Miriam Ibezim (nee Onuaha) who is the mother of my children for her personal reasons left me for some years now for politics, our issue has been secretly managed to the extant that it is even only our biological children who could say how we are staying as we tried to cover up our issues to outsiders. No matter how I had lived or stayed with my wife Princess Miriam Ibezim (nee Onuaha) whom FIDA used her name to file this application as applicant against me, I had never had any form of issue with my said wife necessitating the filing of the instant application, using the name of my wife against me as if we are really quarreling to the extent of coming to court.
After going through the processes constituting the present application, I state that my wife- Princess Miriam Ibezim (nee Onuaha) whom FIDA used her name to file this application as applicant against me, to my knowledge has never had her life being endangered in any way as a result of any infringement to her life by intimidation, threats, criminal assault, physical attack to her person as she has not complained same to me, assuming she is passing through same in the hands of anyone, even though I know too well that no matter what my marital issues with her could be, which I have managed responsibly over the years, I cannot stoop too low to attack her.
My wife- Princess Miriam Ibezim (nee Onuaha) whom FIDA used her name to file this application as applicant against me till date is and remains the mother of my children whom I legally married and whose marriage with me till date has not been divorced and no matter the condition, I do not even have intention of divorcing her as I have been managing her for years now. I have careful gone through the statement, grounds and reliefs sought, and I can still not understand the matter or the particular thing I am accused of doing against my wife- Princess Miriam Ibezim (nee Onuaha) whom FIDA used her name to file this application as applicant against me, or the reason for putting my name in the instant suit.
I have never and did not intimidate, harass, threaten, criminally or civilly assaulted, physically attacked or even attempted to physically attacked or threatened the right of my wife- Princess Miriam Ibezim (nee Onuaha) whom FIDA used her name to file this application as applicant against me.
Paragraph 8 of the affidavit in support of the Application is false to the extent that I am still the husband of Princess Miriam Ibezim (nee Onuoha) whom those behind the filing of this suit chooses to address in her father’s name- Onuoha. That though, for some few years that my wife joined politics, I have not lived under the same roof with her, same does not in any way make me her ex-husband. Till date, I still have my children with my wife- Princess Miriam Ibezim (nee Onuaha) whom FIDA used her name to file this application as applicant against me, and I still till date discharge my responsibility to my children as their father to the extent my income can carry without any complaint from anyone, including – my wife Princess Miriam Ibezim (nee Onuaha) whom FIDA used her name to file this application as applicant against me.
I have never been re-married four times as claimed even to the full knowledge of my wife- Princess Miriam Ibezim (nee Onuoha) whom FIDA used her name to file this application as applicant against me.
Paragraphs 8, 9,10,11,12, 13, 14, 15,16,17,18, 19 and 20 of the affidavit in support are false and accordingly denied. In reaction to the said paragraphs, I avare and maintain that: I married my wife- Princess Miriam Ibezim (nee Onuaha) whom FIDA used her name to file this application as applicant against me, in the year 1993/94 and we went through both the traditional and statutory marriage rites. My said marriage to my wife- Princess Miriam Ibezim (nee Onuaha) whom FIDA used her name to file this application as applicant against me, was blessed with children who are grownups and visits me regularly. I married my wife- Princess Miriam Ibezim (nee Onuaha) whom FIDA used her name to file this application as applicant against me, when she finished secondary school and I took her to Lagos where I sponsored her education at the University of Lagos where she graduated in Estate Management. My driver then- by name Gani, a Yoruba man do take my wife Princess Miriam Ibezim (nee Onuoha) whom FIDA used her name to file this application as applicant against me, to school and brings her back to the house in my own car then in Lagos when she was in University of Lagos. I even opened for my wife- Princess Miriam Ibezim (nee Onuaha) whom FIDA used her name to file this application as applicant against me, a woman saloon shop at No. 22 Alhaji Lateef Salami Street Ajai Estate, Lagos in order to please her and keep her busy.
It was my wife- Princess Miriam Ibezim (nee Onuaha) whom FIDA used her name to file this application as applicant against me, who in the meantime walk out of the marriage and joined politics.
Even after my wife- Princess Miriam Ibezim (nee Onuoha) whom FIDA used her name to file this application as applicant against me had walked out of the marriage and joined politics, I still talk with her on phone when there is need, especially as it concerns our children. Even in the early political stage when my wife- Princess Miriam Ibezim (nee Onuaha) whom FIDA used her name to file this application as applicant against me was facing political criticism by her political opponents that she abandoned me and as such was not living with a man, she contacted me and not minding that she had walked out of the marriage, remembering that she has children for me, I came in to breach that gap and protect her by joining her in most of the campaigns wherein before the crowd, I will mounth the stage to address people to vote for my wife- Princess Miriam Ibezim (nee Onuoha). I successfully protected my wife- Princess Miriam Ibezim (nee Onuaha) whom FIDA used her name to file this application as applicant against me, politically and shamed those her political detractors. Not minding that my wife- Princess Miriam Ibezim (nee Onuaha) whom FIDA used her name to file this application as applicant against me, had then walked out of the marriage, she was still then contesting her elections as Princess Miriam Ibezim, Ibezim being my surename. A copy of one of the campaign posters clearly showing same is attached as exhibit Ibezim 1.
It was recently, after my wife- Princess Miriam Ibezim (nee Onuaha) whom FIDA used her name to file this application as applicant against me, went to the Federal House that I started seeing her being addressed as Princess Miriam Onuoha. My wife- Princess Miriam Ibezim (nee Onuaha) whom FIDA used her name to file this application as applicant against me, has not visited me since she went to the Federal House of Representatives as I only see her on televisions. As a member of the Federal House of Representatives, my wife Princess Miriam Ibezim (nee Onuaha) whom FIDA used her name to file this application as applicant against me uses chain of security operatives who could not even allow any unauthorized person to get close to her, let alone myself attempting or threatening to physically assault her. My wife- Princess Miriam Ibezim (nee Onuaha) whom FIDA used her name to file this application as applicant against me became a graduate in my house and under my sponsorship.
I had never at anytime infringed on any right of my wife Princess Miriam Ibezim (nee Onuaha) whom FIDA used her name to file this application as applicant against me, by way of intimidation, threat, criminal assault, physical attack or breach of her rights to personal liberty and integrity. Since elected to represent the people of Isiala Mbano and Okigwe Federal constituency at the National Assembly, I have not done anything to infringe on her rights not even disturbing any political rally or planning to disturb any organized by my wife. I do not even reside within the Isiala Mbano and Okigwe federal constituency where my wife organizes her rally or political meetings. Even the period I came to stand in for her as the husband against her political detractors, I was then visiting from my base and going back after such realities.
Since my wife- Princess Miriam Ibezim (nee Onuoha) whom FIDA used her name to file this application as applicant against me walked out of my house, I have never had any police issue with her, arising from any alleged intimidation, threat, criminal assault, physical attack, neither have I been sued for any breach of her fundamental rights, except the present application. Since my wife- Princess Miriam Ibezim (nee Onuaha) whom FIDA used her name to file this application as applicant against me walked out of my house, I have never been sued for defaming her as I do not talk against her anywhere, my marital status with her not withstanding. I never invaded the community or even private residence of my wife on the 29th day of December 2021 or on any other date as alleged in this application. I do not presently have anything against my wife’s political ambition and never at anytime threatened physical assault on her; neither did I send any voice notes of any nature either to my said wife of to any social media against her interest.
I never at anytime blackmailed, assassinate and attack the character and life of my said wife in any social media platform, including whatsapp group where people from Isiala Mbano, Onuimo and Okigwe are members of. I never castigated or discredited the person of my said wife. The truth of the matter is and remains that within the material time in question, I do not own any android or smart phone that does whatsapp. In fact, I started using whatsapp after the’ institution of the present application. I never at anytime boasted through any platform that I will attack my wife-Princess Miriam Ibezim (nee Onuoha) or her supporters anytime there is a meeting, rallies, campaigns and procession if organized in favour of my said wife. I have never either in or without the presence of anyone threaten physical assault, violent attack or verbal abuse on my wife targeted at making her worthless before her supporters. There was never a time either through verbal abuse or otherwise did I attempt to assassinate the person of my wife or to do her anything for not attending the burial of any of my relatives. I do not know of any of relatives who in fact died that requires the attendant of my said wife some months ago.
In further reaction to the said paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, ,12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the affidavit in support, I aver and maintain that I specifically maintain that i have no business with the political rights of my wife-Princess Miriam Ibezim (nee Onuoha) and have not done anything whatsoever to frustrate the future political career of the my said wife, neither have I ever threatened to demolish or destroy any project carried out by her for the people of Okigwe North Federal constituency without any just cause.
I have never done anything warranting unprovoked acts of attempted cruelty in beating, intimidation, assault, physical abuse and threat to the life of my wife-Princess Miriam Ibezim (nee Onuoha) which affects Applicant’s liberty and freedom of movements in the entire federal constituency. My wife-Princess Miriam Ibezim (nee Onuoha) by her present status moves about her normal movement freely with security operatives attached to her. I never at anytime threatened to make videos and post same on various social media platforms to ridicule the name and integrity of my wife-Princess Miriam Ibezim (nee Onuoha) in the sites of the members of Isiala Mbano Federal Constituency as well as members of the general public. I never intimidated of oppressed any woman, including my wife-Princess Miriam Ibezim (nee Onuoha). I did not engage anybody with lies to ferment trouble against my wife-Princess Miriam Ibezim (nee Onuoha) and I am not aware of anyone fermenting trouble against her. I have never put at anytime my wife-Princess Miriam Ibezim (nee Onuoha) psychologically, mentally and emotionally state of worry within her federal constituency. I have not lived together with my wife-Princess Miriam Ibezim (nee Onuoha) for some time now so as to say that I am arrogant and disrespectful to her to make her develop unnecessary fear and apprehension. I never threatened to ridicule or lower the intergrity of my wife Princess Miriam Ibezim (nee Onuoha) within her federal constituency of otherwise. I never infringed on any right of my wife-Princess Miriam Ibezim (nee Onuoha). I aver and maintain that my wife-Princess Miriam Ibezim (nee Onuoha) whom I know very well and going by her present status cannot stand and watch me or any other person insult her, abuse her, or commit any crime or even threat of committing any crime against her without taking up the person with the police to prevent same or teach that person a lesson of his life. I aver and maintain that if I had any way done any of the act complained of in the affidavit like lowering the integrity of my wife-Princess Miriam Ibezim (nee Onuoha), my said wife whom I know and by her current suit would have filed a defamatory suit against me which never happened. If the averment contained in the affidavit in support against me is true, my wife-Princess Miriam Ibezim (nee Onuoha) by her status, level and attitude would have at least called me on phone to confront or question me on any of such issues or at least complain to any body to confront me which has never happened. Even when my children stumbled on the copy of the instant process and asked me, they confront my wife-Princess Miriam Ibezirn (nee Onuoha) on the issue who denied knowledge of the pendency of the present Fundamental Right Application, the people that filed same on her behalf, as well as the averment contained therein.
I am convinced that the so called FIDA who filed the present action merely did same to see if they can succeed and have bases to go and ask for money to justify their action from my wife-Princess Miriam Ibezim (nee Onuoha).
Counsel filed respondent written address wherein he formulated issues
(i) Whether from the facts of this case, as contained in the papers before this court, the applicant had shown that any of her fundamental right was bridged by the respondent?
(ii) Whether the applicant is entitled to the relief sort before this court going by the facts before this court?
It is submitted on behalf of the Respondent that Applicant had not made out a case warranting the invocation of the fundamental Rights Enforcement Rules as enshrine in chapter iv of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (As Amended). The applicant was seeking an enforcement of her civil/political rights as a politician. In the case of Agboso vs Iwunze (2015) 11 NWLR pat. 1471 527 it was held that a political office like that of the president, vice president, governor, deputy governor, federal or state house of representative, minister or commissioner, or claims to any job or office cannot qualify as fundamental rights under Nigerian laws. Chapter iv of the 1999 constitution (as amended) contains the bill of rights that qualifies as fundamental rights. Furthermore, the applicant has no cause of action available under the fundamental human right law against the respondent. A cause of action has been defined as the fact or facts which establish or give rise to a cause of action as illustrated in the case of A. G Federation Vs A.G Abia State (2001) 11 NWLR part 725 @ Page 689. The totality of the process filed by the applicant has no cause of action against the respondent and we urge the court to so find and hold.
It is submitted that a glance through the applicant’s pleadings before this Honourable Court would reveal that their facts are either criminal in nature or hinged upon tortuous liabilities. The court in Nwanwuna Vs Nwaebili (2011) 4 NWLR pt. 1237 @ page 290 held that reliefs which are tortuous in nature cannot be initiated under the fundamental right (enforcement procedure) rules, even if there is this some fundamental rights infringement or violation. Such reliefs that are tortuous in nature can only be claimed strictly by following the common law procedure by issuance of a writ of summons and filing of pleadings.
It is submitted that from the totality of the evidence placed before the court, it cannot in any way be said that the Applicant has shown that her fundamental rights have been infringed by the Respondent so as to entitle her to the reliefs sought.
Applicant filed FURTHER AFFIDAVIT OF THE APPLICANT IN OPPOSITION TO THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT deposed to by KAREEM HENRY. He deposed: I have consent and Authority of the Applicant to depose to this affidavit through the following National Officers of the association: a. Mrs. Amina Suzanah Agbaje Country Vice- President/National President of the association. b. Eliana Martins- National Secretary of the association c. Ndidi Aneke- Imo State Chairperson of the association. on the 16th day of September, 2022, at about 11 :00am at our office situate at Plot 108 Idris Gidado Street, Wuye, Abuja, during the office briefing on this suit, I was inform by Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha and I verily believe them to be true that any statement of fact contains in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17 and 18 not specifically admitted herein is false and is hereby denied. Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha has separated with the Respondent for more than fifteen years. Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha is no longer the wife of the Respondent and has ceased to use the name Ibezim which is her former husband’s surname.
Due to domestic violence, torture, inhuman or degrading treatment and physical abuse on Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha by the Respondent, Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha left the marriage fifteen years ago for her their life. Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha was forced out of the marriage by the Respondent due to incessant abuse by the Respondent. And in one of the occasions the Respondent came to the house of Mrs. Christiana Anumaka at Benue State at R318 Federal Low-cost Housing Estate North Bank Makudi, where Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha ran to sought for refuge against the said abuse, beat Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha and Mrs Christiana Anumaka up, disgrace, torture, inhuman or degrading treatment he dealt on them and threatened to kill Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha if she did not come back to their matrimonial house.
FIDA did not ordinarily use the name of Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha to institute this Application rather they witness the plight of Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha under the hands of the Respondent and has in fact investigated and saw the incessant threat to the life of Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha by the ex-husband. The deliberate attempt by the Respondent to restrict the freedom of movement and association of Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha by spreading of false and threatened messages at different whatsapp of the Okigwe constituency (Okigwe -Zurume) where Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha is contesting 2023 general election and the torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, the disrespect to the dignity of human person which Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha is undergoing in the hands of the Respondent.
Owing to what is happening in this part of the country and the security threat which the Respondent has continue to pose to Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha it is necessary the Honourable Court restrict the Respondent from further threat and breach of the fundamental rights of Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha.
The Respondent is still attacking Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha causing people within the said constituency to hate her and insinuating that Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha is obligate to stay in an abusive marriage and to still be using Ibezim as surname.
On the 29/12/2021 at the private residence of the Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha the Respondent invaded same with thugs threatened to physically abuse Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha in the presences of many people. Even when Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha left her private residence the same 29/12/2021 to Mrs. Ewuru residence at Umunachi Isiala Mbano L.G.A, Imo State, the Respondent ran after her to the said Mrs. Ewuru residence and continue his (Respondent) on slot on Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha. That the threat was much that Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha have to complain to some of their family friends to plead with the Respondent to allow her leave her live.
The Respondent sometime in June, 2022 traced Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha at Mrs. Blessing Ugochi Ubah compound at Orlu Road, before Nwaorieubi Police station and abused her physically by torturing and beating her before the crowd she (Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha) was addressing.
The Respondent on the 2/9/2022, equally with thugs and fierce looking men accosted Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha at her resident in Area H, Owerri, attempted to beat up Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha, who was rescued by neighbours and Policemen attached to her. And when Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha wanted to arrest him (Respondent) with Police their two sons that got the information besieged Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha to avoid the Respondent and not to arrest their father. Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha has always been wary of the impact of the said domestic abuse by the Respondent on their children, hence not instituting criminal action against the Respondent and the Respondent has been taking advantage of same. Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha has been the one taking care of the said children of the marriage without the Respondent showing any concern for their up bring.
Some of the threat whatsapp messages which the Respondent and his cohorts are using to torture Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha sent by the Respondent and some of his friends in the Okigwe Zurume platform are exhibited hereto and marked Exhibit “MA”. The picture of the Respondent with his fourth wife is exhibited hereto as Exhibit “MB”. The Respondent never trained Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha in the school and never took care of her. Rather Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha was subjected to grievous domestic violence by the Respondent that she (Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha) has to leave her matrimonial home for her their life. But instead of the Respondent to allow Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha to live in peace, the Respondent has continued to threatened her, have always barred and restricted her movement and freedom of Association. The Respondent cannot stop the threat, restriction and interference in the freedom of movement and Association of Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha. The only time the Respondent call Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha private phone is to threaten her that he will kill her (Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha). And the Respondent has never accompanied Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha to any political campaign, rather all his (Respondent) effort is to pull down Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha and restrict her right to politic and right to Association and movement. Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha only has one policeman attached to me. All the abusive words and publications by the Respondent and his agents has impugn, used to torture and breach Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha right to liberty and dignity to human person. The Respondent residence at Isi ala Mbano L.G.A as he is from the said Area. Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha is no longer the wife of the Respondent who is an ardent and unrepented wife beater. FIDA filed this action after verifying the facts and found out that Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha rights are being breached and inhibited by the Respondent.
It is accompanied by a reply on point of law and adopted the issues raised by the Respondent thus:
a. Whether from the facts of this case the applicant had shown that any of her fundamental right was bridged by the respondent?
b. Whether the applicant is entitled to the reliefs sort before this court going by the facts before this Court?
It is submitted that the Applicant in this application has been able to established that Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha right to freedom of movement, freedom of Association, Right to Dignity of human person not to be tortured and right to respect for the dignity of her person have been severally breached by the Respondent who is a habitual wife beater and molested Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha, who suffered severe and grievous domestic violence under the hands of the Respondent. The publication and unprecedented abuse and dissemination of the family and private life of Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha by the ex-husband in a social media platform of Okigwe Zurume is enough torture and breach to the fundamental right of the Applicant to privacy and dignity of human person etc. The said publication is an infringement to Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha right.
Referred to Articles 4 and 5 of the African Charter for Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and enforcement) Act. It is trite that it is only the Rights guaranteed under the Constitution and African Charter for Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and enforcement) Act that is enforceable under the Rules. The facts relied on by the Applicant disclosed a breach of the fundamental right of Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha who has martial out in the affidavit and further affidavit the threat, molestation, domestic violence, torture and breach which she has suffered under the hand of the Respondent. Referred to Incorporated Trustees of Digital Rights Lawyers Initiative & Ors v. National Identity Management (2021) LPELR- 55623 (CA).
The law is equally trite that where the Fundamental Rights are invaded not by government agencies but by ordinary individuals, as in the instant case, such victims have rights against the individual perpetrators of the acts as they would have done against State actions. See the case of Alhaji Ibrahim Abdulhamid v. Talal Akar & Anor (2006) LPELR – 24 (SC)
The Respondent misconceived the application of the Applicant to be claims for job or political office seeker. The action of the Applicant is found under the fundamental Rules and not tortious in nature. The said publication attached herein and the picture of Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha cancelled by the Respondent and published and followed up with phone call from the Respondent threaten to kill Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha if she ever attends any Political rally and most a time besieging the private residence of Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha beat and torture her in the presence of people. This threat and breach to private life, privacy and dignity of human life. The question is what is the aim of the publisher? The sole aim is to bring Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha to disrepute, torture, invading Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha privacy, right to freedom of Association and dignity to Human Person.
The court is urged to grant the Applicant’s application, whereby restricting the Respondent from further breach of Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha fundamental Rights.
RESOLUTION OF MATTER:
I have considered the application before me the affidavit evidence and written submission of the counsel. It is my view that the issue that calls for determination is whether the Applicant has proved his case as to entitle her to the reliefs sought.
Has the Applicant proved violation or threatened violation of her rights? In the case of UZOUKWU VS EZEONU 11(1991) 6 NWLR (PT.200), 708, Nasir P.C.A reiterated that an applicant must show that:
“… he is entitled to a fundamental right and must (a) allege that any of the provision of the fundamental rights under Chapter IV has been contravened or (b) is likely to be contravened, and (c) the contravention is in relation to him”. See also the cases of: Peterside Vs I.M.B (1993) 2 NWLR (Pt.278), 712; Nwangu Vs Duru (2002) 2 NWLR (Pt.751) 265 at 280.
Section 46 of 1999 Constitution provides that:
“Any person who alleges that any of the provisions of this chapter has been, is being or likely to be „contravened in a state in any state in relation to him may apply to a High Court in that state for redness.
Order II Rule I of the 2009 Rules, provides:
Any person who alleges that any of the Fundamental Rights provided for in the Constitution or African Charter on Human and Peoples‟ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act and to which he is entitled has been, is being or is likely to be infringed, may apply to the Court in the State where the infringement occurs or is likely to occur, for redness.
The main plank of this application is the alleged threat to life (TTL) bordering on intimidation, harassment, threat, criminal assault, attempt of physical attack and threat to the right to personal liberty and integrity of HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA. The application drew its strength from Sections 31 (1), 34(1), 35(1) 40 and 41 of 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended and Articles 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 of the African Chapter on Human and Peoples’ Right (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (Cap 10) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.
Threat to life is discussed at length in the case of EBULUE & ORS v. EZEBUO (2018) LPELR-44685(CA) the court of appeal stated:
“I will be stating the obvious by saying that it is illegal to threaten to kill someone. A threat to kill someone would definitely put some fear of harm or bodily injury into that person. Anyone whose life is threatened or receives a threat to kill has both criminal and civil remedies. The criminal remedy is activated by making a report to the police or any other relevant law enforcement agency. A civil remedy can be pursued by fundamental right enforcement proceedings. Section 33(1) of the Constitution guarantees every person the right to life and no one shall be deprived intentionally of his life, save in execution of the sentence of a Court in respect of a criminal offence of which he has been found guilty in Nigeria. Section 46(1) of the Constitution gives any person who alleges that any of the provisions of Chapter IV of the Constitution has been, is being or likely to be contravened including the right to life in relation to him the right to apply to the High Court for redress. In EZEADUKWA V. MADUKA (1997) 8 NWLR (PT. 518) 635 AT 661 (B-C) this Court per Tobi JCA as he then was considered the Constitutional provision of right to life as enshrined in Section 30(1) of the 1979 and held as follows: “In order to succeed in an action under Section 30 of the Constitution, and in the context of the limb of Order 1 Rule 2(1) of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 1979, an applicant must prove that the respondent threatened to kill him. And here, mere oral threat on the part of the respondent to kill the applicant is not enough to sustain an action. The threat should be backed up with some overt act of an attempt to kill or exhibition of weapons or material capable of effecting the murder or killing of the applicant. A mere vulgar threat of an oral nature without more cannot sustain a Section 30 action.” I agree with the pronouncement of his Lordship that ”mere oral threat on the part of the respondent to kill the applicant is not enough to sustain an action.” However, I disagree with the further pronouncement of his Lordship that ”The threat should be backed up with some overt act of an attempt to kill or exhibition of weapons or material capable of effecting the murder or killing of the applicant”.
Since 1997 when that pronouncement was made, that is over twenty (20) years ago, there have been a phenomenal developments in science and technology mostly for the good of human race but which unfortunately are being used by some criminally minded people to carry out nefarious activities. In today’s world where people get killed by unimaginable means, waiting for an overt act of an attempt to kill or exhibition of weapons or materials capable of effecting murder or killing the appellant may sometimes be too late. Any serious verbal threat to kill should not be ignored. I agree that a mere verbal threat to kill probably uttered in the heat of the moment or a row may not be enough in order to succeed in a civil action on threat to life. In addition, the claimant must show that the threat was directly uttered or delivered to him. In my view, a threat to kill delivered to a 3rd person and relayed to the claimant cannot sustain a civil action for threat to life.
It does appear therefore that though threat to life is a criminal act that may lead to criminal prosecution; it can also give rise to civil action such as fundamental right enforcement action.
I will not dwell on whether the parties in this action are married or still together or not, because the fact that people are married do not take away their right to life or other fundamental right secured by the Constitution. Issue of threat to life can also arise in and within a family. A Threat to Life (TTL) is described as an incident whereby someone’s life is in real and immediate danger.
The Applicant filed further affidavit where she deposed:
On the 29/12/2021 at the private residence of the Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha the Respondent invaded same with thugs threatened to physically abuse Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha in the presences of many people. Even when Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha left her private residence the same 29/12/2021 to Mrs. Ewuru residence at Umunachi Isiala Mbano L.G.A, Imo State, the Respondent ran after her to the said Mrs. Ewuru residence and continue his (Respondent) on slot on Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha. That the threat was much that Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha has to complain to some of their family friends to plead with the Respondent to allow her leave her live.
The Respondent sometime in June, 2022 traced Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha at Mrs. Blessing Ugochi Ubah compound at Orlu Road, before Nwaorieubi Police station and abused her physically by torturing and beating her before the crowd she (Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha) was addressing.
The Respondent on the 2/9/2022, equally with thugs and fierce looking men accosted Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha at her resident in Area H, Owerri, attempted to beat up Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha, who was rescued by neighbours and Policemen attached to her. And when Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha wanted to arrest him (Respondent) with Police their two sons that got the information besieged Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha to avoid the Respondent and not to arrest their father. Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha has always been wary of the impact of the said domestic abuse by the Respondent on their children, hence not instituting criminal action against the Respondent and the Respondent has been taking advantage of same. Hon. Princess Miriam Onuoha has been the one taking care of the said children of the marriage without the Respondent showing any concern for their up bring.
Activities or actions as described above may be tortuous but they are threat to rights to life and liberty as enshrined in the Constitution. Public intimidation is defined as “words and/or behaviour intended or likely to block, influence or deter participation in public debate or causing alarm or distress which could lead to an individual wanting to withdraw from public life”. This includes actions of abuse, harassment and intimidation such as: verbal abuse; physical attacks; being stalked followed or loitered around; threats of harm; distribution of misinformation; character assassination; inappropriate emails, letters, phone calls and communications on social media; sexual harassment or sexual assault; and other threatening behaviours, including malicious communications such as poison pen letters, indecent or grossly offensive emails or graphic pictures that aim to cause distress or anxiety. See Collignon, S. and Rüdig, W. (2020) ‘Lessons on the Harassment and Intimidation of Parliamentary Candidates in the United Kingdom’, The Political Quarterly.
Someone’s actions amount to harassment when they make the victim feel distressed, humiliated, threatened or fearful of further violence. The main goal of harassment is to persuade victims either not to do something that they are entitled or required to do or to do something that they are not obliged to do. Actions may be carried out through phone calls, letters, emails, visits, stalking verbal abuse of any kind, including on social media, threats damage to property bodily harm. As I said one of the means of harassment could be phone calls. See PRINCE SEGUN SERIKI & ORS v. THE CHAIRMAN, THE ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION & ANOR (2019)LCN/12866(CA)
Harassment could be in form of offensive jokes, banter and comments, ostracizing or “freezing out”, ignoring and staring, patronizing comments and remarks, mimicking, use of derogatory terms, inappropriate personal questions or comments, belittling or patronizing comments or nicknames, assault or other non-accidental physical contact, including disability aids, the display, sending or sharing of offensive letters, publications, objects, images or sounds, graffiti, offensive comments about appearance or clothing, deliberate and consistent behaviours which demonstrate a non-acceptance of aspects relating to protected or personal characteristics.
Aggregate of behaviors such as intimidation and harassment, is mental and physical torture of the targeted person. It affects the dignity of human person. Three criteria necessary to qualify an act of torture: it is an ill-treatment, which (a) is intentional; (b) causes severe physical or mental suffering, and (c) is committed with a purpose or objective. The dignity of the human person is not only a fundamental right in itself but constitutes the real basis of fundamental rights.
The courts are not only concerned with the rights as contained in the Constitution but are also enjoined to enforce rights contained in various national and international convections and protocols to which Nigeria is signatory. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS (ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE) RULES, 2009 by paragraph 3 of its preamble provided:
3. The overriding objectives of these Rules are as follows:
(a) The Constitution, especially Chapter IV, as well as the African Charter, shall be expansively and purposely interpreted and applied, with a view to advancing and realising the rights and freedoms contained in them and affording the protections intended by them.
(b) For the purpose of advancing but never for the purpose of restricting the applicant’s rights and freedoms, the Court shall respect municipal, regional and international bills of rights cited to it or brought to its attention or of which the Court is aware, whether these bills constitute instruments in themselves or form parts of larger documents like constitutions. Such bills include;
(i) The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and other instruments (including protocols) in the African regional human rights system,
(ii) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other instruments (including protocols) in the United Nations human rights system,
This to my mind has broadened the rights that can be enforced through the procedure of Fundamental Right Enforcement.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides:
Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person.
Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 20
Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Article 21
Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Furthermore, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has attained the status of customary international law, which means that all nations are bound to uphold its principles.
Domestic violence violate victims human rights to life, health, personal freedom and security, as well as their right not to be tortured or exposed to other inhuman, cruel or degrading treatment, as guaranteed by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (As amended), Universal Declaration of Human Rights UDHR, African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. (Ratification and Enforcement) Act. Chapter A9. (Chapter 10 LFN 1990). (No 2 of 1983) and other international laws. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected.
Right can be enforced against private individuals alone. In ABDULHAMID V. AKAR & ANOR. (2006) LPELR-24(SC), (2006) 13 NWLR (PT.996)127, (2006) 5 S.C (PT I) 44 it is stated:
“It follows therefore that in the absence of clear positive prohibition which precludes an individual to assert a violation or invasion of his fundamental right against another individual, a victim of such invasion can also maintain a similar action in a court of law against another individual for his act that had occasioned wrong or damage to him or his property in the same way as an action he could maintain against the State for a similar infraction.” Per. Akintan J.S.C. (P.23, Paras.A-D)
The Applicant in her further affidavit annexed conversation from whatsapp group- Okigwe Zurume where she alleges that her issue was made a point of discussion. Good name it is said is better than gold. In OTHELLO ACT 3, SCENE 3, 155–161:
Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,
Is the immediate jewel of their souls.
Who steals my purse steals trash; ’tis something, nothing;
‘Twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed.
I am of the view that in matter fought on affidavit evidence the parties have the right to file affidavit be it further or further counter affidavit in support of their case. In ZENITH BANK PLC V. BANKOLANS INVESTMENTS LIMITED & ANOR (2011) LPELR-9064(CA) it was held:
“In originating summons proceedings, the court will only rely on the affidavit evidence as witnesses will not be called. Therefore Appellant would have no other opportunity to controvert those new facts introduced by the respondents. Obviously Appellant would be prejudiced if its right to file further counter-affidavit to counter the new facts is foreclosed. Rules of court are made to help the cause of justice and not to defeat justice. See: U.T.C. Nig. Ltd. v. Pomotei (1989) 2 NWLR (pt. 103) 244. Since the entire action is dependent on affidavit evidence the learned trial judge ought to have carefully assessed the effect of striking out the process. I am therefore of the humble view that where new facts are introduced in a further affidavit, the opposing party is entitled to file a further counter affidavit especially when hearing is yet to commence. In other words, a further affidavit cannot therefore be said to be the last permissible process as erroneously held by the learned trial judge.” Per MSHELIA, J.C.A (Pp. 39-41, paras. A-C).
Also in A.G. ONDO STATE V. A.G. EKITI STATE (2001) 17 NWLR (PT. 743) 706 AT 731 R. 21 the Court stated:
“Where facts in respect of anything deposed to in a counter affidavit or further counter affidavit are not met or addressed by the other party in a further and better affidavit, the proper and only conclusion to reach is that the facts stated in the counter affidavit or further counter affidavit remain unchallenged and uncontroverted”.
IN NIGERIA POLICE FORCE & ORS. V. ONU & ORS. (2007) LPELR-8608(CA).
“In the absence of any counter-affidavit, it is trite that a respondent is deemed to have admitted all the averments deposed to in the affidavit supporting the motion – See Alagbe v Abimbola (1978) 2 SC 39 and Nigerchin Ind. Ltd v Oladehin (2006) 13 NWLR (Pt. 998) 536 at 549 paragraphs C – D.”Per MSHELIA, J.C.A.(P. 25, paras. C-D)
The inability of the Respondent to further respond to allegations in the further affidavit is tantamount to an admission.
It is important that I note that the existence of alternative remedies does not foreclose the use of fundamental right enforcement procedure. An Applicant or litigant is at liberty to use the fundamental rights procedure or any other legally allowable procedure for seeking redress against anybody. So Applicant can equally join reliefs that appear to be tortuous in nature protected under Chapter 4 of the Constitution. In FRN V. IFEGWU (2003) 8 MJSC 36; (2003) LPELR (3173) 1 AT 21-22 OR (2003) 15 NWLR (PT 842) 133 AT 18 E-H where Uwaifo, JSC stated as follows:
“It should be remembered that the action brought by the Respondent in the Federal High Court is not to further appeal from the decision of the Special Appeal Tribunal. It is an action brought under the fundamental rights procedure to show that the prosecution was done in violation of the right guaranteed to the Respondent under the Constitution. In other words, that his fundamental rights had been contravened by the Tribunal sitting in Lagos State when it convicted him … But that did not terminate the Respondent’s entitlement to seek appropriate redress for the alleged breach of his fundamental right arising from these proceedings in a competent Court.
See also: ABDULHAMID V. AKAR (2006) ALL FWLR (PT.321) 1191 AT 1208 – 1209 (SC); (2006) 13 NWLR (PT.996)146; NIGERIA UNION OF TEACHERS & ORS V. CONFERENCE OF SECONDARY SCHOOL TUTORS (CSST) & ORS (2006) NWLR (PT. 974) 590, (2006) ALL FWLR (PT 295) 656 AT 673, ONWO V. OKO & ORS (1996) 6 NWLR (PT.456) 584 AT 603-604.
I am of the view that the Applicant has proven her case. This Application succeeds and it is:
A. DECLARED that the intimidation, harassment, threat, criminal assault, attempt of physical attack and threat to the right to personal liberty and integrity of HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA without commission of any offence known to law is ipso facto illegal and a deliberate violation of the constitutionally protected rights of HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA under section 33(1) 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended and Article 4 of the African Chapter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (Cap 10) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.
B. DECLARED that the intimidation, harassment, threat of criminal assault, physical attack and threat to right to the personal liberty and integrity of HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA without commission of any offence known to law is ipso facto illegal and a deliberate violation of the constitutionally protected rights of the HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA under section 33(1) 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended and Article 4 of the African Chapter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (Cap 10) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.
C. DECLARED that the intimidation, harassment, threat to disrupt any meeting, rallies organized by the supporters of HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA on her behalf in her Federal Constituency without commission of any offence known to law amount to deliberate violation of the constitutionally protected rights of HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA under section 40 & 41 of 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended and Article 11 of the African Chapter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (Cap 10) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.
D. DECLARED that the intimidation, harassment, threat, criminal assault, attempt of physical attack and threat to the right to personal liberty and integrity of HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA without commission of any offence known to law is ipso facto illegal and a deliberate violation of the constitutionally protected rights of the HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA under section 35(1) 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended and Article 4 of the African Chapter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (Cap 10) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.
E. ORDER of perpetual injunction is made restraining the Respondent including his agents and privies by whatsoever name called from harassing, molesting, intimidations, abducting, threatening the life, and right to peaceful procession without recourse to due process of law especially HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA Fundamental Rights as enshrined and guaranteed in chapter IV of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and the African Chapter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (Cap 10) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.
F. ORDER is made directing and compelling the Respondent to tender a written apology to HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA as provided for under section 35(6) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and to filed same in this court.
G. The sum of N200,000,0 (Two Hundred Thousand Naira Only) is awarded against the Respondent and for same to be paid by the Respondent to HON. PRINCESS MIRIAM ONUOHA for the violation of her Fundamental Human Rights to life been threatened, right to personal liberty, freedom of movement, right to peaceful assembly and association, right to dignity of human person and right to respect for her life and the integrity of her person under the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and under the African Chapter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (Cap 10) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.
I so hold
I.M.Njaka
Judge
2-3-2023
Appearance: Emeka Orafu Esq., for the Applicant with AL Ukachukwu
Thelma Akpaka-Lechi (Mrs.) for the Respondent