By Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, SAN
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/idrinstitute.png")
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/TheNigerialawyer-WhatsApp-Channel1.jpg")
INTRODUCTION
THIS is the concluding part of this article on the facts of the case of Melrose General Services v Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (2025) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1972) 1, being the decision of the Supreme Court, which established authoritatively the onus of proof in fundamental rights cases. This page has devoted unusual time to this matter because of its importance in our human rights jurisprudence and to inspire our courts and advocates to give liberal and purposive interpretations to genuine cases of human rights violations. Let me share with you the facts of the case of Candide-Johnson v Edigin (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt.129) 659, where the Court of Appeal quashed the unlawful detention of the appellant in court for ten minutes. On 22nd December, 1987, at the Chief Magistrate Court No. 8, Kano, presided over by Her Worship, Mrs. Esther A. Edigin, Ag. Chief Magistrate, Grade 2, the appellant appeared in the court as counsel to the accused in the case of Commissioner of Police v. Obong Etukudem, KA/70CB/87. Consequent to what transpired at the said court, the respondent ordered the detention of the appellant for a couple of (ten) minutes at the cell.
Having obtained prior leave of the court by ex-parte motion, the appellant, as applicant, moved the Federal High Court, Kano by motion on notice for redress for the breach of his fundamental rights on the grounds set out in the copy of the Statement in support of the application. The application was supported by an affidavit and exhibits used in the motion ex-parte as well as a further affidavit to which was attached a certified record of the proceedings. The application was opposed by an eighteen-paragraph counter-affidavit deposed to by the respondent and after due consideration of the evidence of the parties, including submissions of counsel, Kolo, J., of the Federal High Court, Kano Division, dismissed the application in its entirety in a ruling handed down on 3rd May, 1988. The appellant appealed against the said ruling. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the proceedings of the Magistrate’s Court and deprecated the unlawful detention of the appellant, even for ten minutes, in an extra-judicial manner. The case highlights the importance which the courts should accord to cases bordering on violations of fundamental rights of the citizen, as in the ordinary course of event, one would have brushed aside an infraction that lasted only ten minutes as being of no moment.
On When invocation of power to commit for contempt amounts to abuse of judicial authority:
Per ACHIKE, J.C.A. at page 673, paras. D-F:
“From the foregoing, I am unable to hold that the extra-judicial vituperative exchange between the appellant and the respondent in the peculiar circumstances of this case amounted to contempt of court. On the contrary, I think that the invocation of the power of contempt in the instant case bordered on abuse of judicial authority. It is clearly improper and will expose the administration of justice to ridicule if a magistrate or a presiding officer of an inferior court were invested with such extraordinary powers to provoke unnecessary extra-judicial verbal exchange with counsel or a member of the public and yet invoke against him the lethal and drastic power to punish for contempt. Condemning such untrammeled abuse of judicial authority in Ikonne v. C.O.P. & Justice Nna Nna Nwachukwu (1986) 4 N.W.L.R. (Part 36) 473, at 495 Aniagolu, J.S.C., had this to say: “It is unthinkable that a Judge of the High Court to whom the law looks up for the protection of the fundamental rights of the people should be the one to trample on those rights.”
On attitude of court to unlawful detention of citizens:
“The fourth and last issue in this appeal is whether the rights enshrined under Chapter IV of the 1979 Constitution are available to the appellant. We have in the course of this judgment established that the conduct of the appellant was not contemptuous and yet without trial or conviction and without powers – statutory or otherwise – the respondent unjustifiably caused the detention of the appellant under circumstances which were extrajudicial. The contention of the appellant in relation to the first relief sought for the removal from the High Court for quashing the second purported proceedings of the 22nd December, 1987 and the order of committal and detention of the appellant has been satisfactorily made out, all the issues canvassed in the appeal under the four grounds of appeal having been resolved in appellant’s favour.”
MELROSE V EFCC: DISSENTING OPINION AND NOTABLE PRONOUNCEMENTS
NOTABLE PRONOUNCEMENTS:
On destructive effects of corruption on a society and the need for forfeiture of corruption proceeds-oriented approach to its curtailment:
Per ABIRU, J.S.C. at page 163, paras. D-G:
“Corruption is a vice, a virus, a scourge that contaminates and destroys the fabric of any society that allows it to take root and fester. The reality of the effects of corruption is the socio-economic threats it poses to any nation. It suppresses economic growth and undermines the sustainable management of natural resources. It breaches fundamental rights, undermines social security, exacerbates poverty and promotes instability by diverting funds from needed social and basic services. It does not matter how much revenue a nation possesses or makes and how transformative its plans are; corruption will ensure that the majority of the people do not benefit from it. Corruption is a difficult and multifaceted problem that cannot be attacked and destroyed or de-escalated by one methodology. The failure of the traditional sanctions in the fight against corruption necessitated the development of counter-measures to combat the menace. This is what led to the development of global initiatives brought about by international consensus on a new proceeds-oriented approach to crime control.”
On need to align Nigerian judicial approach to non-conviction-based forfeiture with that of similar common law jurisdictions:
Per ABIRU, J.S.C. at pages 163-164, paras. G-H:
“I have gone to these details in highlighting the jurisprudence that has been developed around the concept of civil forfeiture in jurisdictions similar to ours and to emphasize the policies underpinning the jurisprudence in making the point that the concept is not of Nigerian origin, that it is not indigenous to Nigeria. It is a global concept that has been in operation in other climes for much longer and which jurisdictions have made considerable efforts in expounding its scope and operational limits. The concept was assimilated as part of a global strategy to combat the scourge of corruption by Article 54 of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) and which enjoined each State party to consider taking such measure as may be necessary to allow confiscation of property suspected to be proceeds of unlawful act without a criminal conviction. The Convention came into force in 2005 and Nigeria is a member State and a signatory to the Convention. Also, the 2005 Commonwealth Expert Group on Asset Recovery and Reparation urged countries to consider taking measures that would allow confiscation of property without a criminal conviction and to also promptly put in place, comprehensive legislations and procedures for non-conviction-based asset forfeiture. Section 17 of the Advanced Fee Fraud Act provides for non-conviction-based asset forfeiture and it is similar to the provisions of other member States and signatories to the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) and the member States of the Commonwealth. It is thus of utmost importance that our judicial approach to interrogating and interfacing with the provisions of the section should as much as possible align with what operates in other common law jurisdictions similar to ours. This point was appreciated by this court in Jonathan v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (supra) at 571, where Akaahs, JSC, after traversing through judicial decisions of foreign jurisdictions on civil forfeiture, commented thus:
‘Non-conviction-based forfeiture legislations have received judicial approval in many foreign jurisdictions … The entire world is now a global village, thanks to technological developments and Nigeria is part of that global village. Nigeria does not live in isolation and developments in other parts of the world impact either positively or negatively on this country. Since Nigeria is a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) and has gone ahead to enact several anti-corruption laws, the practice in other jurisdictions as already highlighted above, while not binding, could serve as guide to the application of our local legislations.’
CONCLUSION:
The valid point being made by the Supreme Court in Melrose v EFCC is that our courts should apply the presumption of life to the citizens and err on the side of giving respect to the enforcement of their fundamental rights. Persons and authorities who find reason to violate or trample upon these rights should be the ones to justify the circumstances of such violation to the court. Once a citizen has shown prima facie that his fundamental rights have been, are being or are likely to be infringed upon, the judicial button should be activated in his favour, provided that such presumption can be rebutted with facts by the respondent. For now, let us have more of Melrose v EFCC cases.
“History of Rivers State Judiciary: A Compendium of Personalities on the Bench.” Authored by Ampim Gogo Blankson, Esq., Deputy Director at the Rivers State Ministry of Justice, in collaboration with the Rivers State Judiciary 💰 Cover Price: ₦20,000.00 (Twenty Thousand Naira) Bukky Law Books, Rivers State High Court Complex, Moscow Road, Port Harcourt – 📞 08034868754📞 08034729738📞 Enquiries: ______________________________________________________________________ Law Practice Kit (Second Edition) And Legal Luminaries Series 2 Unveiled 
Authored by Abdulrasheed Ibrahim, LL.M, Notary Public Law Practice Kit (Second Edition) and Legal Luminaries Series 2 📚 For Enquiries and Orders, Contact: 📞 08055476823, 📞 08164683735, 📞 08033855230 ___________________________________________________________________ [A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
