The new IG of police should make a quick resolution on this case as part of efforts to restore public confidence in the police. The story of Mr. Emeka Okeke shows that access to justice is still a mirage for the ordinary Nigerian. ADE ADESOMOJU reports.
For Mr. Emeka Okeke, the court will never again be a place to seek justice. The 41-years-old businessman said instead of going to court to seek redress for any wrong, he would turn to God for justice.
“Even if it is obvious that I have been cheated, I will leave everything to God. Going to court is just a waste of time and money, especially for people like us,” Okeke told our correspondent.
In a recent encounter with Okeke, our correspondent had inquired from him why he stopped pursuing the enforcement of two separate court orders directing the police to return to him a sum of N700,000 seized from him in 2008 on the excuse of using it as exhibit in a criminal case instituted against him.
Okeke was charged with arson after his landlord, Alhaji Adejare Apampa, accused him of setting ablaze his (Okeke) rented apartment at 1, Olatoke Owoo Close, Ikotun, Lagos State, on September 2, 2008. This was despite the fact that Okeke lost all his belongings to the inferno.
However, the police, since October 2010, have continued to flout two separate court orders which directed them to release the money to the owner upon his being discharged.
This newspaper had in its edition of October 17, 2013, published the story titled, ‘Police shun court orders, sit on N700,000 cash exhibit’.
However, further investigation by our correspondent revealed a bigger picture of how Okeke’s quest for justice, like that of many other ordinary Nigerians, was frustrated.
As of the time our correspondent spoke with Okeke in July, he had instructed his lawyer, Mr. Kevin Okoroafor, to stop going to court for the case.
“I have tried all my best to convince him to let us follow through the case because we have put a lot into it, but he would not listen,” Okoroafor said.
The court was to sit in February 2014 for further enforcement proceedings, but neither the lawyer nor Okeke was present in the Court 5 of the Chief Magistrate’s Court in Ebute Metta.
By February 2014, it was already three years and four months since the court ordered the police to release his money to him following the legal advice from the Lagos State Directorate of Public Prosecutions in the Ministry of Justice, that the accused had no case to answer.
When our correspondent contacted Okeke, his frustration was laid bare in the tone of his reaction.
He said, “I’m tired of that case. When a new magistrate took over the case, she asked us to start from the stage, which we had passed two years ago.
“I cannot continue. I have wasted money and time on the case. I just had to let go.”
Cost of justice
Though what was at stake was N700,000, Okeke told our correspondent that he had spent over N300,000 on the case, excluding what he had spent before he was discharged on October 27, 2010.
“I would still have had to keep spending money and wasting my time if I had continued the case,” he added.
Okeke and his lawyer had parted ways since February following the disagreement which ensued between them over his intention to stop pursuing the enforcement of the court orders.
Okoroafor, who was the second lawyer appearing for Okeke since the case started in 2008, gave a shocking response when our correspondent attempted to crosscheck his client’s claim with him.
“Honestly, he had spent more than that. Saying he (Okeke) had spent N300,000 is an understatement,” the lawyer said.
He however blamed the nation’s “legal system”, which according to him, makes a litigant to bear high cost of litigation that can be equal to what is at stake.
Okoroafor said, “It doesn’t speak well of our legal system. It shows that the poor who are in the majority have to pay through their nose to get justice.”
When asked if lawyers were not to blame, he said, “No, no, no! You have to look at the expenses involved. These include filing fees, cost of attending court and other unofficial fees.
“The unofficial fees are even more than the official ones. You have to pay some unofficial fees to get the job done by court workers. There is nothing the lawyer can do about those ones.”
Losses and detention
Okeke did not have anybody at the top, who could help him to stop the police from instituting the arson charge against him, having himself suffered a great deal of losses in the fire incident which consumed his rented apartment at 1, Olatoke Owoo Close, Ikotun, Lagos State, on September 2, 2008.
Apart from losing vital documents and all his personal effects in the fire incident, Okeke, a businessman dealing in printing of exercise books, also lost N800,000 worth of goods.
Despite his huge loss, his landlord, Alhaji Adejare Apampa, a retired policeman, had gone ahead to report the case at Ikotun Police Station, accusing him (Okeke) of deliberately setting the house ablaze.
The landlord was living in his house in Mushin, another area of Lagos State, but he was maintaining a flat beside Okeke’s on the top floor of the one-storeyed building. Both apartments were consumed by the inferno which started at about 3pm on the day of the incident.
The landlord’s suspicion of his tenant’s culpability in the incident stemmed from an earlier disagreement between them over Okeke’s tenancy. The landlord had refused to allow Okeke to renew his rent for another year, insisting that the businessman should quit the house .
The fire incident occurred some days after the expiration of Okeke’s initial rent.
On inspection to the scene of the incident, the investigative police officer assigned to handle the case discovered some currency notes, totaling N700,000, which were slightly affected by the fire, in a fireproof safe.
The impact of the fire did not rob the notes of their acceptability as legal tender. The safe in which the money was found was discovered in a destroyed wardrobe within the shell of what used to be Okeke’s bedroom.
After all was thought to have been lost, discovering such amount of money was a sort of relief to Okeke.
But the police had another plan. Okeke was promptly arrested by the police.
The man, who was living with his wife and child in the house, was detained as the police kept mounting pressure on him to pay N5m as compensation to his landlord.
Okeke had refused to yield to the pressure as he thought doing so would amount to conceding to the allegation leveled against him. The case was then transferred to the State Criminal Investigation Department, Lagos State Command of the Nigeria Police, Panti.
The police commenced criminal proceedings against him at Court 5 of the Chief Magistrate’s Court in Ebute Metta.
On the order of the presiding Chief Magistrate, Mr. P.A. Ojo, the duplicate case file was sent to the Directorate of Public Prosecutions of the state’s Ministry of Justice, to seek legal advice.
The magistrate had granted bail to Okeke, but because he could not perfect his bail term, he spent about 22 days in Ikoyi Prisons before his release on January 9, 2009.
No case to answer
The matter had continued to drag on as the legal advice from the DPP was being awaited.
The police prosecutor, an Assistant Superintendent of Police, Innocent Effiong, told the magistrate on October 27, 2010 that the prosecution had received the legal advice from the Ministry of Justice.
The said legal advice had recommended that Okeke be discharged as there was no case against him.
“This office is therefore of the opinion that the suspect (defendant) should be discharged and released if still in custody as there is no case is disclosed against him,” the legal advice read in part.
In response to the advice, the magistrate ruled, “Pursuant to the advice and Section 74 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law, the charge is struck out and the defendant is discharged. It is further ordered that exhibits recovered by the police be released to the defendant.”
And the rigmarole begins
The police did not appeal against the court’s ruling.
Since the magistrate gave the order, Okeke and his counsel had since made series of efforts to claim the money from the police.
A letter dated dated March 24, 2011, which Okeke had written on behalf of his client had read thus, “We wish humbly to draw the attention of the Commissioner of Police to the enabling laws. The magistrate’s order for restitution was made pursuant to Section 300 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law, 2007 of Lagos State.
“We therefore demand that our client’s sum of N700,000 as indicated be paid into his bank account No. 0148110000xxxxxx in Intercontinental Bank Plc or a bank draft in like sum be delivered to our firm without further delay.”
When their series of efforts to make the police to comply with the court order failed, Okeke and his lawyer filed summons for compliance against the Commissioner of Police in Lagos.
The summons for compliance was filed before a Chief Magistrate, Mrs. C.T. Adesola-Ikpatt, who took over the case from Ojo.
The summons for compliance was filed against the Lagos Commissioner of Police in accordance with Section 56(1) and (2) of the Magistrate’s Court Law (No. 16) 2009.
The police and denials
Our correspondent obtained records of the proceedings which followed Okeke’s filing of the summons for compliance.
At the proceedings of June 23, 2011, which followed the filing of the summons of compliance, Okoroafor complained to the court that the summons had been served on the Commissioner of Police but that the police had yet to comply with the court order.
In response, the police prosecutor, Effiong, sought an adjournment for report of compliance as “steps are in motion to comply with the order”.
It was another story from Effiong at the following hearing on August 24, 2011.
“I am not conversant with the true position of this case,” he told the presiding magistrate, Mrs. C.T Adesola-IKpatt.
The magistrate then ordered, “The O/C (Officer in Charge) Legal, Panti, is ordered to appear before this court on September 7, 2011 to explain why they have failed to comply with the order of this court.”
Events which followed were unbelievable to both Okeke and his counsel. The police returned to court to present an entirely different story, which was that the money could no longer be found. They added hat the original investigative police officer identified as Inspector Raphael Aladetoyinbo, who took up the case when it was transferred to the SCID in Panti, had died.
On November 18, 2011, Effiong led an Assistant Superintendent of Police, Patrick Nnadi, who was serving at the Homicide Section of the SCID in Panti, to testify on oath as follows, “I am aware of the case pending before this court directing the police to release the exhibits in this case to the defendant/applicant. No, the order of court has not been obeyed”.
Nnadi added, “Sometimes in the month of September2011, I was invited to the O/C Legal office and I was informed of the order of this court. The case file was requested and by virtue of my position as Station Officer (Homicide Section, Panti), I left to search for the file.
“I am not the original IPO in the case. The original IPO is one Inspector Rapheal Aladetoyinbo now late, I have read and I recognise a copy of the signal I sent to the commissioner of Police regarding the death of the said officer.”
Nnadi also testified that on discovery that the case emanated from Ikotun Police Station, he contacted a sergeant in the station, Philomena Kadiri, who was the one handling the matter in Ikotun. He completed his testimony, by saying “the said exhibit has not been found.”
Under cross-examination, Nnadi testified that records of the Exhibits Room of the SCID did not show that the money was transferred from Ikotun.
“Yes, I want this court to take it that there is an Exhibit Room at Ikotun Police Station. The exhibit in this case would have been registered there. The exhibit should be there since it is not endorsed on their file that it was transferred to SCID, Panti, with the file,” the policeman said while fielding questions from Okoroafor during cross-examination.
The court then made an order summoning the lead prosecutor in the case, Mr. Peter Ugwumba, who is a Deputy Superintendent of Police; Nnadi and Kadiri to appear in court for further clarification on the disappearance of the exhibit. Kadiri was the police officer handling the matter in Ikotun.
Another police shocker
When on March 9, 2012, Ugwumba appeared in court, he told the court that further investigation had since revealed that the money was indeed transferred from Ikotun to the SCID but was “not handed to the exhibit keeper”.
He said, “My Lord, further investigation into this case has revealed to us that the exhibit in this case was actually brought with the case file from Ikotun Police Station to the SCID, Panti.
“So, the misplacement of the exhibit occurred at SCID, Panti at ‘D4’ Section – it was however not handed over to the exhibit keeper.”
In an apparent attempt to save the face of the police, Ugwumba said, “It is an unusual situation and the police frown at this. We intend to sanction all officers involved.”
However, rather than fulfilling his promise, Ugwumba at the following proceedings of May 16, 2012, asked for an adjournment “to enable us to bring before the court the team leader who headed the investigation into this case. We have been reliably informed that he is presently serving in Ibadan.”
The magistrate quickly dismissed the suggestion, saying, “In my view, the attendance of the said officer will not serve any purpose. The police should have done their private/internal investigation and ensured compliance with the order of court.”
Then the court adjourned for parties to adopt their written addresses.
The second order of compliance
On July 25, 2012, the magistrate read her ruling ordering that “the Inspector-General of Police and the state Commissioner of Police in Lagos State be notified of the disobedience of their officers and men at the state Criminal Investigation Department of the court order made on October 27, 2010, directing them to release to the applicant the monetary exhibit” to the owner.
The magistrate held, “This honourable court has taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly, the fact that the respondent acting through his officers and men at state CID, Panti has had a period of over 22 months since the order of this court was made on October 27, 2010 to comply with the said order.
“In order to restore the hope of the common man in our judicial system, it is important that this court ensures that her orders are not made in vain. The failure of those in authority to obey court orders, especially those vested with the power of enforcement of such orders would only lead to anarchy and break down of law and order stemming from likely loss of confidence in the judicial system.”
The magistrate also dismissed the excuse of the IPO’s alleged death as the reason for the disappearance of the exhibit.
The magistrate ruled, “In my view, the nature or condition of the exhibit involved in this case is of no consequence. The important thing is that the police took it into custody and the court having ordered its release to the applicant, the order ought to be complied with.
“It is also my humble view that the alleged death of the IPO who investigated this case is not and should not be an excuse as the said exhibit would have been handed to the exhibit keeper and therefore not expected to have been in the custody of the late IPO.
“It is for the above reasons that this honourable court finds it reasonable to grant the application of the defendant/applicant in part. “
In addition to the Inspector-General of Police and the state Commissioner of Police, the Lagos State DPP was also ordered to be served with the order.
The disobedience continues
Okoroafor had cause to report back to the magistrate on December 5, 2012, that the police had yet to comply with the fresh order of court, while conforming that the order had been served on the Commissioner of Police in the state and the state’s Attorney-General and Commissioner of Justice. But he said he had not been able to serve the order on the Inspector-General of Police. At the proceedings of that day, the prosecutor representing the police in the case told the court that the case file was missing and on that basis the police had not been able to enforce the court order.
But the magistrate confirmed that the same prosecutor had appeared in the case on October 10, 2012 and no reference was made to a case of missing file. The court reiterated its earlier order and asked the respondent (the police) “to put its house in order and ensure that the subsisting order of this court is complied with without further delay”.
The court then granted Okoroafor’s application for service of the order on the Inspector-General of Police via courier.
Failed service
After sending a copy of the order to the Inspector-General of Police at the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, through courier services, what was cited as the reason for rejecting the service of the order at the Force Headquarters, was that it was “wrongly addressed”.
And Okeke says bye, bye to court
Mr. Emeka Okeke’s hope of ever getting justice dropped to zero level when a new magistrate took over his case in late 2013 following the appointment of the former presiding magistrate in Ondo State. The expectation of the businessman was that the new magistrate would pick the case up from where she met it.
But to the chagrin of the claimant and his lawyer, when they appeared in court in January, they were asked to serve the orders freshly on the police authorities.
“It is like asking us to start all over again. I was devastated. I immediately told my lawyer to stop going to that court,” Okeke told our correspondent.
As of the time of filing this report, efforts were being made to reach the police in Lagos State for their reaction. When earlier contacted, the Police Force spokesman, Mr. Frank Mba, after weeks of promising to react to our correspondent’s inquiry on the case, later asked him to reach the Lagos Command to react to the case.
http://www.punchng.com/feature/the-law-you/court-where-orders-arent-enough-to-get-justice/ |
