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.
Nwanze is praying the Federal High Court in Lagos to award him N120 million in damages in a fundamental rights suit he filed over his alleged unlawful arrest, detention, and invasion of his residence.
At the resumed hearing of the suit yesterday, his counsel, Olawale Fapohunda (SAN) of E & O Legal, informed the court that the Army had released his client without charging him with any offence.
But Fapohunda said the military was still withholding Nwanze’s international passport and other personal belongings.
The plaintiff alleged that when his 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 said 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 court’s convenience.
The lawyer told the court that the respondents had filed applications seeking to regularise their counter-affidavit dated October 27, 2026.
Justice D.I. Dipeolu held that the third respondent, the Attorney-General of the Federation, was neither present nor represented in court. The judge held that the party should be given an opportunity to be heard.
The court adjourned the matter until December 2, 2026, for hearing.
In the suit, Nwanze is asking for N120 million in damages from the Nigerian Army, the Chief of Army Staff (COAS), the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), and the Commanding Officer of the 81 Battalion, Bonny Cantonment, Victoria Island, Lagos. Nigerianews subscription
The applicant is asking for 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 for the alleged invasion of his residence.
He is also seeking declarations that his arrest and detention without reasonable cause or suspicion violated his right to personal liberty under Section 35(1), (4) and (5) of the Constitution.
Nwanze prayed 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.
The plaintiff also alleged that the seizure and continued retention of his 2019 Hyundai Creta Evolution GLS and private documents violated his right to own property under Section 44 of the Constitution.
According to him, his residence at Block E, Flat 1, Alpha Bay Estate, Agungi, Lekki, Lagos, was invaded on October 6, 2026. 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.
He argued that the Armed Forces Act primarily empowers the military to investigate offences committed by persons subject to service law.
According to him, Nwanze does not fall within the category of persons subject to service law as defined under Section 270 of the Act, which covers specified categories of military personnel.
Fapohunda submitted that the investigation of financial crimes, including fraud and money laundering, falls within the statutory mandate of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) under Section 6 of its Establishment Act.
He argued that where the Army arrests a civilian suspected of committing such offences, it should hand the individual over to the appropriate law enforcement agency for investigation and possible prosecution.
On allegations bordering on terrorism financing, Fapohunda 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 does not expressly confer investigative powers on the Army, maintaining that his client should have been transferred to the EFCC or the Department of State Services 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, which allegedly began on October 10, six days before the order 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 constitutionally prescribed procedures.
He also opposed the respondents’ contention that the fundamental rights suit was premature because investigations and remand proceedings were allegedly ongoing.
Fapohunda argued that the pending processes did not deprive the court of jurisdiction to examine the alleged rights violations.
Commenting 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 proceed against the other respondents.
Discover more