“Army’s Power To Investigate Civilians Challenged” — Businessman Drags Nigerian Army, COAS, AGF To Court, Demands ₦120m

A businessman, Jonathan Nwanze, has challenged the statutory powers of the Nigerian Army to investigate civilians over alleged financial crimes, including money laundering and terrorism financing, in a fundamental rights enforcement suit before the Federal High Court in Lagos.

Nwanze is demanding ₦120 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, over his alleged unlawful arrest, detention and invasion of his residence.

At the resumed hearing on Tuesday, November 10, 2026, counsel to the businessman, Olawale Fapohunda, SAN, of E & O Legal, informed the court that the Nigerian Army had released his client without filing any criminal charge against him.

Fapohunda, however, complained that the military was still withholding Nwanze’s international passport and other personal belongings despite his release.

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 fundamental rights suit.

Responding, counsel to the first and second respondents, O.E. Alaofin, undertook to facilitate the release of Nwanze’s international passport.

Fapohunda recalled that the matter had previously been 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.

However, Alaofin informed the court that the respondents had filed applications seeking to regularise their counter-affidavit dated October 27, 2026.

Justice D.I. Dipeolu, who presided over the proceedings, observed that the third respondent, the Attorney-General of the Federation, was neither present nor represented in court.

The judge held that it was appropriate to give the Attorney-General an opportunity to be heard before proceeding with the matter.

Consequently, Justice Dipeolu adjourned the suit until December 2, 2026, for hearing.

In the fundamental rights enforcement suit, marked FHC/LAG/FR/485/2026, Nwanze is seeking several declarations and monetary reliefs over the circumstances surrounding his arrest, detention and the alleged seizure of his property.

The businessman is demanding ₦50 million as damages for his alleged unlawful arrest and detention, ₦40 million for the alleged violation of his right to dignity of the human person and ₦30 million over the alleged unlawful invasion of his residence.

He is also asking the court to declare 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 1999 Constitution.

Nwanze further seeks a declaration that the alleged invasion of his residence breached his constitutional right to privacy and family life under Section 37 of the Constitution.

He also contends 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, military personnel invaded his residence at Agungi, Lekki, Lagos, on October 6, 2026, before arresting him four days later, on October 10.

In his supporting affidavit, Nwanze alleged that while he was in detention, the respondents prevented his family members, friends, lawyers and personal doctor from having access to him.

Beyond the alleged violations of his constitutional rights, the businessman is challenging the legal authority of the Nigerian Army to investigate civilians for offences that ordinarily fall within the statutory responsibilities of other law enforcement agencies.

In a reply on points of law filed on November 5, 2026, Fapohunda argued that the Armed Forces Act primarily empowers the military to investigate offences committed by persons subject to service law.

He maintained that his client was a civilian who did not fall within the categories of persons subject to service law as defined under Section 270 of the Armed Forces Act.

The senior lawyer submitted that the Army could not rely on the provisions governing military personnel to assume investigative powers over civilians suspected of financial crimes.

According to him, the investigation of financial offences, including fraud and money laundering, falls within the statutory mandate of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) under Section 6 of the EFCC Establishment Act.

He argued that where the Nigerian Army arrests a civilian suspected of committing such offences, the appropriate procedure is to hand the suspect over to the relevant law enforcement agency for investigation and possible prosecution.

Fapohunda also addressed the respondents’ reliance on provisions of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 concerning allegations of terrorism financing.

He acknowledged that Section 64 of the Act empowers the military to arrest, search and detain suspects in circumstances provided under the law, while Section 99 identifies the Army among the relevant agencies under the legislation.

However, he maintained that Section 64 does not expressly confer investigative powers on the Army in respect of the alleged offences.

The applicant’s counsel consequently argued that the military ought to have transferred Nwanze to the EFCC or the State Security Service (SSS) for investigation rather than continuing to exercise investigative authority over him.

The senior lawyer further 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 submitted that the order could not retrospectively legitimise his client’s detention from October 10, six days before the order was reportedly made.

According to Fapohunda, an order obtained after an arrest cannot automatically justify an earlier period of detention if that detention was otherwise contrary to constitutional requirements.

He maintained that the existence of criminal allegations against an individual does not extinguish the person’s constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights.

The lawyer insisted that any arrest or detention must comply with the procedures prescribed by the Constitution, irrespective of the nature of the allegations under investigation.

Fapohunda also opposed the respondents’ argument that the fundamental rights action was premature because investigations and remand proceedings were allegedly still ongoing.

He contended that the existence of those processes did not deprive the Federal High Court of jurisdiction to determine whether the applicant’s constitutional rights had been violated.

The senior lawyer maintained that the court was entitled to examine the circumstances of Nwanze’s arrest, detention and the alleged interference with his property and personal liberty.

On the respondents’ objection to the inclusion of the Commanding Officer of the 81 Battalion as a party, Fapohunda argued that the objection could not defeat the entire action.

The respondents had contended that the office of the Commanding Officer was not a juristic person capable of being sued.

However, counsel to the applicant maintained that even if the court upheld the objection, the fundamental rights suit could still proceed against the other respondents.

The proceedings have therefore raised questions concerning the extent of the Nigerian Army’s statutory authority to investigate civilians, the constitutional limitations on arrest and detention, and the legal effect of remand orders obtained after an individual has already been detained.

Although the military has released Nwanze without filing any charge against him, the applicant is continuing his action over the alleged violations of his fundamental rights and the reported retention of his personal belongings.

The court has yet to determine the substantive claims or the competing legal arguments concerning the Army’s investigative powers.

Justice Dipeolu adjourned the matter until December 2, 2026, when the court is expected to hear the pending proceedings.

.. “Army’s Power To Investigate Civilians Challenged” — Businessman Drags Nigerian Army, COAS, AGF To Court, Demands ₦120m … NewsNGR.