Ajayi Olusegun is a legal practitioner and Senior Partner at A. A. Olusegun and Associates. For those who know him when he focuses on an issue, he sees it to a logical conclusion. So, it was that when his client, Richard Abbey, a pipeline surveillance contractor with Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC) was arrested by the Department of State Services (SSS), also known as State Security Service (SSS) on July 16, 2022, he utilized every avenue within the ambit of the law to secure his release.

In an interview he granted newsmen recently, Mr. Olusegun x-rayed the issues surrounding his client’s arrest and incarceration, declaring it as illegal and a contravention of extant laws and is currently chasing claims in favour of his client at the court. He further explained that the legal resolution of the issues under review will serve as a deterrent to other lawn enforcement agents who may attempt to resort to self-help instead of following due process in the course of enforcing the law. Enjoy the excerpts.    

Kristina Reports: Can we have a narrative of what transpired between the DSS and your client, Mr. Richard Abbey?

Ajayi Olusegun: Mr. Richard Abbey has been my client for the past fifteen years. At the early hours of Saturday, 16th day of July, 2022, his wife called me and said the DSS invaded their premises at New GRA in Port Harcourt, and arrested him on handcuffs, destroyed doors, took away laptop, documents and some other valuables; and detained him there at their office in Old GRA, Port Harcourt. On that same Saturday, I went there as his lawyer but they did not allow me to see him. The following day, I was there being on Sunday, they still refused me to see him. On Monday, I went there with a team of my lawyers, they still refused us to see him. When they saw the persistence, they said I should do an official application. I did an application; they took it from me and asked me to wait in their waiting room where I waited for almost one hour only for them to come back and tell me that I should go; that they have taken my phone number and they will call me they are ready to meet me. Since I left, they never called me back.

How about his wife? Was she able to see him?

Same thing happened to his wife who has always been going there; they refused her from going to see her husband who is in their detention. It became something that is not understandable.

Was that why you went to court?

Of course, with the way they were operating, it became apparent that we have to resort to court which is the hope of the common man. As a lawyer, I can’t fight them, I don’t have guns, I don’t have arms to force myself to see my client. So, I had to resort to court. Firstly, we went to court on the basis of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Rivers State number 7 of 2015, particularly, section 166 of the provisions of that law which entitles the Magistrate Court to order the production of a suspect in custody of any of either the police or any other law enforcement agency. We went there by an exparte application and the court granted that application. They have since served the order on them to produce him in court. Shockingly, the DSS came to court only to file a motion saying that they were not given seven days within which to respond to the application to produce him. And, of course, this was without producing the suspect who is in their custody. That is laughable, quite laughable because an application that was exparte does not require a notice on the respondent. All the respondents need is the notice for substantial application for bail. So, they came to court crying foul and we had to ask a question, ‘You’re crying that you were not given fair hearing, did you give the suspect fair hearing? You were supposed to arraign him if you know you could not conclude investigation against him within 24 hours going by section 30 and 32 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law. I say kudos to those who made that law. The drafters of that law, they did well because it is a panacea or a solution to illegal or unlawful detention of citizens of this country. But, in spite of this laudable law, the DSS refused to produce the suspect who is in their custody.

Could this be why you had to go to the High Court?

At that point when they could not produce him and also could not tell us what he has done, we suspected something was wrong. So, unfortunately, we had to discontinue the case in the Magistrate Court because we have seen that since the DSS refused blatantly to produce him in court, they were up to something. So, there was need to enforce his fundamental human right under chapter 4 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended. Hence, we discontinued the Magistrate Court case and proceeded to the High Court to enforce his fundamental human right. At the High Court also, we had to apply exparte for him to be produced in court. The court, in its wisdom, granted that order and the originating summons, as well as, the order mandating or directing them to produce the applicant – this time around you see we have left the realm of suspect to now applicant – so the order asking that the applicant be brought to court was now served on them on the 8th of August, 2022. As soon as that process or those processes were served on them on the 9th of August, they released him on bail without waiting to comply with the entire order of the court which says produce him in the court on the 11th of August, 2022. So, on their own, they granted him administrative bail and whereas the case was to come up on the 11th of August, which is the return date, as a counsel, I had to advise my client that ‘now that you have been released or granted bail, please your case is coming up on the 11th of August 2022, please you have to be in court so that the court will know that you are no longer in the custody of the DSS’.

So, did he appear in court and what happened next?

Yes, the applicant was in court on that day. In addition to that, the applicant has filed further affidavit. Shockingly, in his further affidavit in a substantive motion that enforces fundamental human right, the applicant said up till date, spanning the almost three weeks within which he was in the custody of the DSS he was never told what he did. He said he doesn’t know his offense and was never shown any petition. He was never told of any intelligence report that warranted the invasion of his house without a warrant of arrest and without a search warrant. Would somebody who had a warrant of arrest or a search warrant invade a suspect’s house by 1 and 2am? Certainly, the answer is in the negative.

So, the DSS arrested and detained him without any charge, whatsoever?

No. the worst is that throughout his detention, he was never told ‘this is why you were arrested. This is who petitioned you. This is the evidence we have against you’. And as per the DSS, they are an agency we have so much regard and respect for. But, as it is now, I just wonder if this is how the DSS operates. Then it has left so much to be desired of them.

So, what’s are the next steps?

Now, the applicant has asked for several release of claims against the DSS for his unlawful detention, unlawful arrest, refusal of or denying him access to his family or lawyer during detention and their failure to tell him what he has done. These are fundamental rights that have been provided for in our Constitution, the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, Ratification and Enforcement Act including the Administration of Criminal Justice Act of Rivers State. These are laws and they are meant to be obeyed, they are meant to be respected; you cannot handle the rule of law in such a manner. It is wrong. So, the applicant is asking for certain release including N500million as damages, exemplary damages against the first and the third respondents for violation of his rights, particularly, violation of his fundamental human rights. It will serve as an example to other law enforcement agents who take laws into their hands. They act as the arresting agency, the prosecuting agency and as the judge at the same time; that is wrong. We should not condone it. We should not encourage it and that is why we are desirous or we intend to pursue this case to its logical conclusion.

When is the case coming up next?

The case is coming up next on the 17th of August 2022 for hearing.