Justice Mohammed Idris of the Federal High Court in Ikoyi, Lagos, has ordered the Nigeria Police Force to produce in court the brother-in-law of billionaire kidnapper, Chukwudumem Onwuamadike, aka Evans, who has been held in detention for four months.
Evans’ brother-in-law, Okwuchukwu Obiechina, has been held in police detention for his alleged involvement with Evans’ kidnapping case.
Mr. Obiechina’s lawyer, Olukoya Ogungbeje, said he has been detained by the police since June 2 and prayed the court to order his release from police detention.
The suit, marked FHC/L/CS/1050/20177, has Mr. Obiechina and his wife, Nzube, who is Evans’ sister, as plaintiffs.
They sued the Commissioner of Police in Lagos State, the Nigeria Police Force, and the Special Anti-Robbery Squad of the Lagos State Police Command.
Mr. Ogungbeje, who is also representing Evans, had on Friday appeared before Justice Idris with an ex parte application seeking an order to mandate the police to free Mr. Obiechina.
But rather than granting the ex parte application, Justice Idris directed the lawyer to put the police on notice, with an order that the police must produce Mr. Obiechina before him on October 12 to show cause why the order for his immediate release should not be made.
One Okoliagu Abunike, who deposed a 15-paragraph affidavit in support of the ex parte application, said Mr. Obiechina was arrested by a team of policemen led by two officers, identified only as Phillip and Christian.
Mr. Abunike argued that Mr. Obiechina was arrested and detained solely because of his relationship with Evans, adding that the police officers had been bragging that no court would order the release of Mr. Obiechina.
“Since June 26, 2017, the first applicant is still being detained at the detention cell of the respondents till date, even beyond the constitutionally allowed time by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,” Mr. Abunike said.
“The applicant has not committed any offense known to law to warrant his being arrested and detained by the operatives of the respondents.
“The applicant has not committed any offense known to law that will warrant the infringement of his right to life, personal liberty, fair hearing, freedom of movement and dignity of human person,” he argued.
