A businessman, Jonathan Nwanze, has challenged the Nigerian Army’s statutory powers to investigate civilians over alleged financial crimes, including money laundering and terrorism financing, in a fundamental human rights enforcement suit in which he is seeking N120 million in damages over his alleged unlawful arrest, detention and invasion of his residence.
At the resumed hearing of the suit on Tuesday, counsel to Nwanze, Olawale Fapohunda, SAN, of E & O Legal, informed the Federal High Court in Lagos that the Army had released his client without preferring any charge against him.
Fapohunda, however, told the court that the military was still withholding Nwanze’s international passport and other personal belongings.
He further alleged that when the applicant’s lawyers approached the Army to secure the release of the items, they were given certain conditions, including the withdrawal of the pending suit.
In response, counsel to the first and second respondents, O. E. Alaofin, undertook to facilitate the release of Nwanze’s passport.
Fapohunda recalled that the matter was last adjourned to enable the respondents to file their defence, adding that the applicant was ready to proceed with the hearing, subject to the convenience of the court.
Alaofin, however, informed the court that the respondents had filed applications seeking to regularise their counter-affidavit dated October 27, 2026.
Justice D. I. Dipeolu observed that the third respondent, the Attorney-General of the Federation, was neither present nor represented in court. He held that it was appropriate to give the party an opportunity to be heard.
The judge consequently adjourned the matter until December 2, 2026, for hearing.
In the fundamental rights suit, marked FHC/LAG/FR/485/2026, Nwanze is seeking a total of N120 million in damages from the Nigerian Army, the Chief of Army Staff, the Attorney-General of the Federation and the Commanding Officer of the 81 Battalion, Bonny Cantonment, Victoria Island, Lagos.
The applicant is demanding N50 million for his alleged unlawful arrest and detention, N40 million for the alleged violation of his right to dignity of the human person, and N30 million over the alleged invasion of his residence.
He is also seeking declarations that his arrest and continued detention without reasonable cause or suspicion violated his fundamental right to personal liberty, guaranteed under Section 35(1), (4) and (5) of the Constitution.
Nwanze further wants the court to declare that the alleged invasion of his residence breached his right to privacy and family life under Section 37 of the Constitution.
He also alleges that the seizure and continued retention of his 2019 Hyundai Creta Evolution GLS and private documents violated his constitutional right to own property, as protected under Section 44.
According to the applicant, his residence at Block E, Flat 1, Alpha Bay Estate, Agungi, Lekki, Lagos, was invaded on October 6, 2026, while he was arrested four days later, on October 10.
In his supporting affidavit, Nwanze alleged that the respondents prevented his family members, friends, lawyers and personal doctor from having access to him while he was in detention.
In a reply on points of law filed on November 5, 2026, Fapohunda challenged the Army’s authority to investigate civilians over alleged financial crimes, arguing that the Armed Forces Act primarily empowers the military to investigate offences committed by persons subject to service law.
He submitted that Nwanze did not fall within the category of persons subject to service law as defined under Section 270 of the Armed Forces Act, which covers specified categories of military personnel.
Fapohunda argued that investigations into financial crimes, including fraud and money laundering, fell within the statutory mandate of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), pursuant to Section 6 of the EFCC Establishment Act.
He contended that where the Army arrested a civilian suspected of committing such offences, it ought to hand the individual over to the appropriate law enforcement agency for investigation and possible prosecution.
On allegations bordering on terrorism financing, the applicant’s counsel acknowledged that Section 64 of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, empowers the military to arrest, search and detain suspects, while Section 99 lists the Army among the relevant agencies under the Act.
He nevertheless argued that Section 64 did not expressly confer investigative powers on the Army, maintaining that the military should have transferred his client to the EFCC or the Department of State Services (DSS) for investigation.
Fapohunda 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 from October 10, six days before it was made.
The applicant’s counsel further maintained that the existence of criminal allegations against his client did not extinguish his constitutional rights, insisting that any arrest or detention must comply with the procedures prescribed by the Constitution.
He also opposed the respondents’ contention that the fundamental rights suit was premature because investigations and remand proceedings were allegedly ongoing. He argued that the pending processes did not deprive the court of its jurisdiction to examine the alleged violations.
On the respondents’ objection to the inclusion of the Commanding Officer of the 81 Battalion as a party, on the ground that the office was not a juristic person capable of being sued, Fapohunda argued that even if the objection succeeded, the suit could still proceed against the other respondents.
