A businessman, Jonathan Nwanze, has challenged the Nigerian Army’s authority to investigate civilians over alleged financial crimes, seeking ₦120 million in damages for alleged violations of his fundamental rights.
Nwanze filed the suit marked FHC/LAG/FR/485/2026 against the Nigerian Army, the Chief of Army Staff, the Attorney-General of the Federation and the Commanding Officer of the 81 Battalion, Bonny Cantonment, at the Federal High Court in Lagos.
At the resumed hearing earlier today, November 10, his counsel, Olawale Fapohunda (SAN), told the court that the Army had released his client without filing any charge against him.
However, Fapohunda said the military had yet to return Nwanze’s international passport and other personal belongings. He alleged that the Army imposed conditions, including the withdrawal of the pending suit, when his client’s lawyers approached it to secure the release of the items.
Counsel to the first and second respondents, O.E. Alaofin, promised to facilitate the release of the passport. He also informed the court that the respondents had filed applications to regularise their counter-affidavit dated October 27, 2026.
Justice D.I. Dipeolu observed that the Attorney-General of the Federation, listed as the third respondent, was neither present nor represented in court. He said the party should be allowed to be heard before adjourning the case until December 2, 2026, for hearing.
In his reply on points of law filed on November 5, Fapohunda questioned the Army’s statutory authority to investigate civilians over alleged financial offences.
He argued that the Armed Forces Act primarily empowers the military to investigate offences committed by persons subject to service law, adding that his client did not fall within the categories specified under Section 270 of the Act.
The lawyer maintained that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has the statutory mandate to investigate financial crimes, including fraud and money laundering, under Section 6 of its Establishment Act.
He argued that the Army should hand over civilians arrested for such offences to the appropriate law enforcement agencies for investigation and possible prosecution.
On allegations bordering on terrorism financing, Fapohunda acknowledged that Section 64 of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 empowers the military to arrest, search and detain suspects.
He also noted that Section 99 of the Act lists the Army among relevant agencies. However, he argued that Section 64 did not expressly grant the military investigative powers and insisted that the Army should have transferred his client to the EFCC or the Department of State Services for investigation.
The applicant’s counsel also challenged the respondents’ reliance on an ex parte remand order allegedly obtained from the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt on October 16, 2026.
He argued that the order could not retrospectively justify Nwanze’s detention, which allegedly began on October 10, six days before the order was issued.
According to the businessman, soldiers invaded his residence at Block E, Flat 1, Alpha Bay Estate, Agungi, Lekki, Lagos, on October 6, 2026, before arresting him four days later.
In his supporting affidavit, Nwanze alleged that the respondents denied his family members, friends, lawyers and personal doctor access to him during his detention.
He is asking the court to award him ₦50 million for alleged unlawful arrest and detention, ₦40 million for the alleged violation of his right to dignity and ₦30 million for the alleged invasion of his residence.
He is also seeking declarations that his arrest and detention without reasonable cause violated his right to personal liberty under Section 35(1), (4) and (5) of the Constitution.
Furthermore, he wants the court to declare that the alleged invasion of his home breached his right to privacy and family life under Section 37.
Nwanze also accused the respondents of violating his right to own property under Section 44 of the Constitution through the seizure and continued retention of his 2019 Hyundai Creta Evolution GLS and private documents.
Fapohunda maintained that the existence of criminal allegations against his client did not strip him of his constitutional protections, insisting that any arrest or detention must comply with the law.
He also opposed the respondents’ argument that the fundamental rights suit was premature because investigations and remand proceedings were allegedly ongoing.
On the objection to the inclusion of the Commanding Officer of the 81 Battalion as a respondent because the office was not a juristic person capable of being sued, Fapohunda argued that the case could still proceed against the other respondents even if the objection succeeded.
