The family of former National Security Adviser (NSA), Col. Sambo Dasuki (rtd), who has been in detention since 2015, has asked the President Muhammadu Buhari led-Federal Government to respect several pending court rulings which granted their son bail.
The ex-NSA has been in the custody of Department of State Services (DSS).
Speaking to newsmen in Abuja, yesterday, the family members maintained that the President should consider the latest Appeal Court’s ‘landmark’ judgement, having disobeyed previous judgements.
“We are anxiously waiting for President Buhari’s government to obey the latest order of the Court of Appeal by releasing our breadwinner”, a member of the family said.
“So far, six different judges at the FCT High Courts, Federal High Courts as well as ECOWAS Court of Justice have ordered for the immediate release of Dasuki after perfecting the bail condition which were never obeyed.
“We pray that with the unanimous judgment of a panel of the Appeal for Dasuki’s immediate release, the government will obey the order coming from a higher court in the land.”
Meanwhile, a group of well-wishers and sympathizers have offered to stand as sureties for the erstwhile NSA in the latest court judgement at the Appeal Court.
This followed declaration by the Court of Appeal in Abuja that the detention of Dasuki was illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional, and ordered his release on conditional bail.
The appellate court held that the DSS and its director general acted outside their constitutional powers on the long period of the detention of a Nigerian citizen and imposed a fine of N5million on them to be paid to Dasuki as compensation for breach of his fundamental right.
In a unanimous judgment of a 3-man panel of Justices of the court led by Justice Tinuade Akomolafe-Wilson, the court held that the fundamental right of the ex-NSA had been brazenly and brutally breached by the prolonged detention without trial in any fresh charge or investigation contrary to the provisions of the 1999 Constitution.
In the lead judgment of Justice Akomolafe- Wilson, Dasuki was subsequently admitted to bail in the sum of N100million and two sureties in the like sum.
The judgment, endorsed by Justice Peter Olabisi Ige and Justice Emmanuel Akomaye Agim, was made public at the weekend.
It read: “The two sureties shall be serving public servants not below the status of level 16 officers in either state or public service of the Federal or any of its agencies and shall produce a valid documents of his or her status to the registrar of the federal high court in Abuja.
“Each surety must be resident within the jurisdiction of the high court and other physical address must be verified by the court registrar and shall also produce two recent passport size photographs in addition to deposing to affidavit of means.
“The sureties each shall furnish evidence of ownership of property in the Federal Capital Territory worth N100million”.
It would be recalled that a Federal High Court Judge, Ijeoma Ojukwu, had on July 2, 2018, admitted Dasuki to bail on conditions the NSA complained to be too harsh and stringent for him his family to perfect especially deposit of N100million to the high court registrar by his sureties before he can be released on bail.
The Appeal Court Justices, however, set aside the harsh and stringent bail conditions of the judge for being outlandish and replaced them with the fresh ones.
The court commended the findings of facts by the judge that Dasuki had been dehumanised by his prolonged detention but disagreed with her on the refusal to award damages as compensation to assuage the injuries inflicted on the ex-NSA.
“In my avowed view the learned trial judge misconceived the prayer of the appellant and erroneously interpreted relief 4 for bail as an alternative prayer to relief 7 for damages”, Justice Akomolafe- Wilson read.
“This error occasioned a miscarriage of Justice by the failure to award damages which is a natural consequence for the finding that the fundamental right of the appellant has been grossly violated; upon which the court heavily deprecated the action of the 1st and 2nd Respondents.
“The established principle of law as amplified in plethora of authorities is to the effect that award of damages must flow naturally once the court find that the fundamental right of an individual has been breached with legal justification. The compensation is automatic, and ought to be granted, even when the aggrieved party does not pray for compensation.
“The judiciary is the main institution charged with the responsibility for the protection and enforcement of human rights. The fundamental rights intentionally entrenched in our constitution must therefore be jealously guarded and protected through practical pronouncements of reliefs granted by the courts so as to assuage citizens whose fundamental rights have been violated.
“Under no guise or any circumstance whatsoever should the court shy away from the hallowed role. It is common knowledge that a threat to the right of one individual is a threat to the right of all. Democracy, which we value exceedingly in this country cannot be successful if respect for human rights and constitution is wobbling.
“The point I am putting across is that effective judicial protection of human rights is an indispensable component of order and good governance so as not to weaken the confidence of the people in seeking for judicial enforcements and remedies of their rights.
“I am conscious of the fact that the lower court heavily deprecated the act of the 1st and 2nd respondents for the unlawful continued detention of the appellant, especially where three courts, including the ECOWAS court had impugned their action of the violation of the appellant right.
“The respondents neither cross-appealed nor filled a respondent’s notice on this issue. The decision of the trial court on the finding that the appellant’s fundamental rights were unlawfully breached is therefore extant. I will therefore say no more on this point.
“I am conscious of the fact that the issue of bail, its grant and the fixing of terms are entirely at the discretion of the court. Such discretion must however be exercised judicially and judiciously. Each case must be determined on its own peculiar circumstances”.