"It is important, perhaps to note at this stage that the Apex Court and as well this Court in several decisions on the subject have condemned the dangerous practice of rushing to the High Court to prevent the Police from inviting, arresting, investigating and prosecuting persons who have criminal allegations leveled against them.
In the case of ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF ANAMBRA STATE vs. CHIEF CHRIS UBA (2005) 33 WRN 191, this Court per BULKACHUWA, JCA (As he then was, now PCA) had this to say on the subject; "For a person, therefore, to go to Court to be shielded against criminal investigation and prosecution is an interference of the powers given by the Constitution to law officers in the control of criminal investigation. The Plaintiff has no legally recognizable right to which the Court can take cognizance of if it has disclosed no cause of action. The Plaintiff cannot expect a judicial fiat preventing a law official in the exercise of his constitutional powers."
The Respondent herein, having been the first to have set in motion a ministerial action as it were by making a report to the Police about the threats to his life by the 1st Appellant, one would have expected him to have followed his actions through to their logical conclusions when he was invited by the Police in connection with the allegation leveled against him for receiving money under false pretences. The Police, under the instrumentality of extending an invitation to the Respondent to call on them afforded the Respondent the opportunity of setting the records straight and in exculpating himself.
However, by taking to his heels or going into hiding as he did, rather than confidently making himself available to the Police and being helpful to them in their investigations he deprived not only the Court below but as well this one the opportunity of finding out exactly what had transpired between the parties and who between the duo was blameworthy. The trite position of the law is that the Police has power to invite, arrest investigate and even detain anyone pending investigation, who is suspected of having committed an offence and this power is derived from Section 214 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
It is perhaps, to be specifically noted that the mere exercise of that power cannot by virtue of Section 35 (1) of the 1999 Constitution amount to a breach of the Fundamental Right of a person, even when such exercise will result in the curtailing of his freedom of movement. It is also to be noted that in the exercise of this power by virtue of Sections 4 and 24 of the Police Act Cap 359 LFN, 1990 the Police have discretion upon reasonable suspicion of committing a crime to arrest any person, including the Respondent and it is generally not the business of the Court below to fetter this discretion. See the case of FAWEHINMI vs. I.G.P. (2002) FWLR (PT. 1355) AT 1376 - 1377; AGBI vs. OGBE (2005) 8 NWLR (PT. 926) 40; ONAH vs. OKENWA (2010) LPELR- 4781 CA; HASSAN vs. EFCC (2014) 1 NWLR (PT. 1389) 607.
In any case, where the police use their powers improperly, the Court will not hesitate to declare any wrongful action of the police null and void if it is discovered that there had been an improper use of police power under the guise of the so-called exercise of the power of investigation and prevention of crimes. See the case of JOHN FALADE vs. ATTNGEN. LAGOS STATE (1980) 2 NCLR 771, where it was held that the Court is always prepared and will be quick to give relief against any improper use of power of the Police.
See also the case of CHIEF PAT ENWERE vs. C.O.P. (1993) 6 NWLR (PT. 299) 333 on the subject, but never to restrain the police from performing its lawful and Constitutional duties, more especially under the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case in which the Police never set their eyes on the Respondent let alone got him arrested."
Per OHO, J.C.A. IN OGUEJIOFOR & ORS v. IBEABUCHI CITATION: (2017) LPELR-43590(CA)
