In extradiction cases, provisional arrest warrant is predicated on extradition application (2)

IN THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT
HOLDEN AT LAGOS, NIGERIA
ON MONDAY THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2015
BEFORE HONOURABLE
JUSTICE O.E. ABANGJUDGE
SUIT NO: FHC/L/CS/508/2015
BETWEEN
PRINCE BURUJI KASHAMU JUDGMENT CREDITOR/APPLICANT
AND
INSPECTOR- GENERAL OF POLICE
CHAIRMAN NIG. DRUG LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY (NDLEA) JUDGMENT DEBTORS
CHAIRMAN ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL CRIMES
COMMISSION (EFCC) AND 9 ORS

IN RE APPLICATION FOR EXERCISE OF COURT’S
DISCIPLINARY JURISDICTION:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERAL
REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA … ALLEGED CONTEMNORS
CHAIRMAN NIG. DRUG LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY (NDLEA)

No extradition suit was filed in this Court before the warrant was signed. There is no suit number stated on the warrant of arrest. This is wrong. Provisional warrant of arrest in extradition cases is always predicated on an extradition having been filed already in this Court by the Attorney General of the Federation not even by the NDLEA.

In this case, the warrant was purportedly issued and signed on 25th May 2015 before the extradition application was filed in Abuja division of this Court subsequently.

There is nothing to show that the Honorable Chief judge of this court assigned the suit that ought to have contained a warrant to the judge that purportedly signed the warrant. The warrant was arbitrarily issued.

It was not issued and signed by the Judge in line with due process of law that is in line with the Extradition Act amended by Extradition Order 2014.

The steps taken by NDLEA before the warrant was purportedly issued and signed is unknown law. Learned counsel for NDLEA only informed the Court that the warrant was signed by a senior judge of this Court.

The name of that senior judge was not mentioned by him. All steps leading to the issuance of warrant are shrouded in secrecy and the court reasonably believes that NDLEA had other motives in issuing the warrant than the discharge of their statutory functions.

Where a warrant of arrest was issued and signed by a judge without jurisdiction, the same court or judge of coordinate jurisdiction has jurisdiction to set aside same. See Skenconsuit vs. Ukey supra.

Again until the judgments of this court in suits No: FHC/L/CS/49/2010 and FHC/L/CS/508/2015 are set aside, the Applicant cannot be arraigned before this court in any of its divisions for his extradition. Federal High Court is only one Court see section 249 of 1999 constitution. The charge or an application filed in Abuja division of this court in suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/479/2015 on account of the subsisting judgments of this court is a nullity and ought not to have been filed.

We are not in the regime of the rule of might. Observance of the rule of law is one of the tenets of the democratic rule and the cornerstone of our democracy. The authorities must subject themselves and observe the rule of law and not to exhibit brute and naked display of official power failing which there may be anarchy in the land.

Therefore in the exercise of my disciplinary jurisdiction as preserved in section 6(6)b of 1999 constitution and relying on the authorities earlier cited in this ruling, I hereby grant prayers 1 and 2 endorsed on the Applicant’s application dated 5th June 2015.

The invasion of the Applicant’s premises with armed operatives of NDLEA on 23th May 2015 is hereby declared unlawful and unconstitutional and a clear abuse of official power, an affront to the authority of this Court and it is actionable against NDLEA.

The provisional warrant dated 25th May 2015 that is claimed to have signed by the judge of this court in exercise of the court’s disciplinary jurisdiction is hereby set aside and accordingly nullified.

This Court is not exercising appellate jurisdiction here far from it. The processes before me do not show that the judge of this Court that is claimed to have signed the warrant had the Jurisdiction in doing so because no extradition suit had been filed and assigned to him that would have led him to sign the warrant of arrest.

Warrant of arrest is always predicted on a suit already filed by the Attorney General of the Federation in line with Extradition Act, which is not the case here.

There has been a subsisting order of court restraining NDLEA from taking further actions on the application to extradite the Applicant. The order was not set aside when the warrant was purported issued signed.