Nigeria:Court refuses Nyanya blast suspect’s request for freedom. The nation

Justice Adeniyi Ademola of the Federal High Court, Abuja has refused a request for freedom made by Sadiq Ogwuche, the alleged mastermind of the April 2014 bomb blast in Nyanya, Abuja, in which over 70 people died.

The judge, in a verdict yesterday in a fundamental rights enforcement suit by Ogwuche, resolved the sole issue for determination against him, to the effect that his repatriation from Khartoum, Sudan, where he allegedly escaped to after the incident on July 15, 2014 and subsequent detention without trial did not amount to a violation of his fundamental rights and that he was not entitled to compensation.

Ogwuche had sued the Department of State Services (DSS) and the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), accusing them of violating his fundamental rights as guaranteed under chapter four of the constitution for detaining him for over 90 days without being taken before any court for trial.

He urged the court to declare his detention illegal, order his release either conditionally or unconditionally; award N600 million damages against the respondents, and order the defendants to offer him public apology to be published in two national newspapers.

The DSS eventually arraigned him while his case was pending. He is now being tried, with some others, for terrorism before Justice Ahmed Mohammed, also of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

In his judgment yesterday, Justice Ademola agreed with the respondents that Section 35(4) of the Constitution, which prohibits undue detention of a suspect, is not applicable in cases of terrorism.

He equally agreed with the defendants that section 35(7) of the Constitution, which provides that a person accused of terrorism does not benefit from Section 35(4).

The judge further agreed with the respondents that rights guaranteed under Chapter Four of the Constitution are not absolute in cases relating to security, and that Section 27(1) of the Terrorism Prevention Act (TPA) allows an accused person to be detained for 90 days before being taken to court.

“In conclusion, this court takes judicial notice that in the course of argument in this case, the applicant has since been arraigned before Justice A. R. Mohammed of Court 7 of the Federal High Court. In the circumstance, this court agrees with the contention of the 1st and 2nd respondents that the applicant’s fundamental rights are not breached. No order for cost is made,” Justice Ademola said.