On Wednesday March 20, 2019, citizen Jumbo Ogah an officer of the Nigerian Security and Civil defence Corps (One of those paramilitary organisations in Nigeria whose roles collide, conflict and are confused with that of the Nigerian Police), dressed up in that early morning heat in his starched blue uniform with a red patch on the collar ready for work. But before he could go to office he had to do school runs and also wifey runs. It was a normal day, a hot day succeeding a hot night. A normal Wednesday in Abuja the Federal Capital typical for its hot weather at this time of the year. There was no inkling of evil, the cloud was bright and the weather man had on the previous night predicted a hot weather with a maximum temperature of 35’ c. Though the weather was hot and the day bright yet Citizen Jumbo Ogah did not know that his blood would soon run cold and the bright cloud darken over his family.

If you live in Abuja and know about the Nyanya axis, you would know how chaotic the traffic over there is in the mornings and in the evenings. It was therefore predictable that Jumbo Ogah with his wife and two children in tow would run into the chaotic traffic that morning. Typical of any and or all people of official uniform in Nigeria, he decided to use his uniform as a pass against the chaotic traffic (they all do it, from Soldiers to Policemen to Civil Defence, Customs, immigration etc. minus maybe the FRSC) but alas he ran into some other uniformed men who from what could be deduced from Ada’s (Jumbo’s wife) narrative were nursing a grudge against men and officers of the Nigerian Security and Civil Defence Corps. For his offence of misused privilege, the penalty was death, not just death but death with clubs. As the wife narrated “they kept hitting my husband with their batons… in front of his children and later dragged him on the ground to the police station”. Citizen Jumbo Ogah’s offence was therefore not that he committed any alleged traffic offence rather his offence was that he belonged to corps that was allegedly trained by the police but whose officers and personnel have refused to accord the Nigerian Police its due respect. To the two traffic policemen Jumbo Ogah must be taught a lesson that would resonate among the men and officers of the Nigerian Security and Civil Defence Corps.

According to Ada the policemen dragged her husband on the ground to their police station, where he was further mocked and parodied, the Divisional Police Officer was not to be left out in the morbid fun. She said that the policemen taunted her dying husband claiming that it was the police that trained the men and officers of the Civil Defence Corps but that they (men and women of Civil Defence) do not respect those who trained them. The Divisional Police Officer pretending ignorance of the pains of the man lying almost lifeless in his Station, ordered that the man lying almost lifeless and probably under intense internal bleeding be pricked with a needle to bring him back to life as he believed the man was faking unconsciousness. That is the brutal callousness that is Nigeria. Citizen Jumbo Ogar was brutally and scandalously murdered by those who belong with him to the same spirit of service (spirit of one body) e spirit d’ corps.

The Acting Inspector General of Police has promised that justice would be done, he has ordered an autopsy to be carried out to determine the cause of death, but the fact is that Mrs. Ada Ogar is now a widow, the Ogar Children are now fatherless, spousal love is gone, fatherly influence is gone. The Ogar family mourns, they are traumatized and the children will live with the memory of their father being bludgeoned to death.

Jumbo Ogar is dead but his blood screams for justice in a country where lives do not matter but will justice be done.        

ON THAT SEARCH OF HON. JUSTICE WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN FARM

It is now common knowledge that the prosecution led by a Senior Advocate of Nigeria has goofed in its hire wired and horribly jaundiced trial of the ‘suspended’ CJN. I recall Mr. Femi Falana SAN talking to a reporter at the FCT High Court during the NBA declared boycott of the courts as a protest against the illegality of the suspension of the CJN. Mr. Falana told the reporter that NBA was celebrating criminality. That statement spoke volumes. However, I am not presently interested in the trial but something that has gone under the radar. On Saturday March 2, 2019, it was alleged that the operatives of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission in their usual braggadocio invaded Hon. Justice Onnoghen’s Farm in Nassarawa State. According to one of the employees at the Farm, the EFCC did not show them any search warrant (before they commenced the search) claiming that the commission does not need search warrants to conduct searches. The Commission hurriedly came out on Sunday March 3, 2019 to deny that it invaded or searched Justice Onoghen’s Farm. Well whether it is true that the EFCC searched Justice Onoghen’s Farm or not, the alleged claim that the EFCC does not need a search warrant to search a premises is bogus. We shall look at the provisions of the law on search of premises and conveyances by the EFCC.

It is common for security agencies to use the twin weapons of ignorance of the law and intimidation to hoodwink Nigerians. Though legally speaking illegally obtained evidence (like evidence obtained through an illegal search of a person, house etc.) is admissible in law, but a person can avoid this by insisting on the law following its cause. It is not only immoral but illegal for operatives or agents of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission to unlawfully invade a private property for a search without warrant claiming that it does not need a search warrant.

Though the main Act establishing the Commission did not provide that the Commission should obtain a search warrant, yet the Act did not make any explicit provision for Search of a property in the course of the Commission’s investigations. However, in 2010 the then Attorney General of the Federation Mohammed Bello Adoke acting pursuant to the powers conferred on him by S. 43 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s Act made the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Enforcement) Regulations 2010. Part V of the Regulations deal with Search, Inspection, Seizure, Forfeiture and Disposal of Property.

S. 13 of the Regulations provides; the Commission shall apply and obtain a court order to enter and search any premises, seize and take possession of any book, document or other articles evidencing the commission of an offence under the Act.

S. 14 of the Regulation provides; an officer of the Commission exercising the power pursuant to regulation 13 of these regulations shall obtain a warrant from a Judge or Magistrate to do the following-

a. break open any outer or inner door or window of any premises and enter thereto or forcibly enter the premises or any part thereof;

b. remove by force any obstruction to such entry, search, seizure or removal as he is empowered to effect;

c. detain any person found in any premises or conveyance to be searched pursuant to regulation 13, until the premises or conveyance has been searched.

The regulations made by the Attorney-General of the Federation pursuant to S. 43 of the EFCC Act which empowers him to make rules and regulations with regard to any of the duties, functions or powers of the Commission (EFCC) has the force of law and is binding on the Commission.

The implications of Regulation 13;

For the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission to exercise its power to search any premises or conveyance (Vehicles, Ship, Airplane etc.), and seize anything therein, it must first apply for and obtain a court Order. It is believed that such an application has to be by an ex-parte application before court a High Court or a Magistrate Court. The contents of the application should include, the name and address of the premises and the reason for the search, if the Judge or Magistrate after considering the affidavit evidence of the Commission is convinced that there is cogent reason to issue the search warrant then the Judge or Magistrate will grant the order and pursuant to the order made sign a Search Warrant. However, the grant or refusal of the application to issue a search warrant is at the discretion of the court.

The implications of Regulation 14;

For the Commission to carry out any of the acts in regulation 14, it must first obtain a warrant from a Judge or Magistrate, it would therefore be illegal for the Commission to enter a premises or conveyance uninvited and without a Warrant signed by High Court Judge or Magistrate. The Commission cannot even produce a search warrant without an accompanying order of court, since the law provides that it must obtain a search warrant pursuant to a court order. The implication is that any Search Warrant signed by a Judge or Magistrate which was not signed pursuant to an Order of that Judge or Magistrate is invalid and cannot admit any operative of the Commission into any premises or conveyance without the permission of the occupant or owner of the premises or conveyance.

However, where the operatives come to a premises without fulfilling the conditions in regulations 13 and 14 and the owner or occupant willingly admits them then they can go ahead and conduct their search but where they are denied entry they should behave like civilized beings under the law and go back.

Where therefore any operative of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission enters a premises or conveyance uninvited and without a search warrant (backed by a Court order) signed by a High Court Judge or a Magistrate and proceeds to search the premises or conveyance without the consent of the occupier, though whatever incriminating evidence discovered could be used against the occupant of the premises or conveyance, the occupant can maintain an action in the tort of trespass against those persons who carried out the act. If the occupant can establish that those who carried out the search were acting for the Commission at the time of the act, then the Commission is also liable in the tort of trespass.