"What seems to be in dispute in this case as it relates to the enforcement of fundamental rights is whether the 2nd - 4th Appellants were also detained for the said 8 hours in the office of the 2nd - 3rd Respondents as alleged by the Respondents or in Police cell as alleged by the Appellants. All the same, the learned trial Judge was not wrong in my opinion to have held on the admitted or agreed facts that there was no unlawful arrest or detention in this case. This is because the petition to the 1st Respondent by the 4th - 7th Respondents variously referred to in the record and submissions of Counsel as Exhibit MOJ 1 or Exhibit F provided justification for the 1st - 3rd Respondents to arrest and detain the Appellants for a reasonable period of time. From the above perspective, the Judgment of the learned trial Judge is well grounded in Law and unassailable. The truth is that the fundamental right of the Appellants to freedom of movement and personal liberty is neither unlimited nor is it a right to lawlessness and impunity. Indeed, once Criminal allegations are made against a citizen, it is Constitutional and statutory duty of the Police to investigate, as investigation and detection of crime is one of the primary duties assigned to the Police under Section 4 of the Police Act. See OMOTUNDE VS. OMOTUNDE (2001) 9 NWLR (PT. 718) 525; COSMOS DESMOND VS. OKENWA (2010) LPELR - 4781 (CA); AGUDI VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (2013) ALL FWLR (PT. 660) 1247 at 1295, 1296. In LUNA VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE RIVERS STATE COMMAND (2010) LPELR 8642 (CA) this Honourable Court held that the power of the Police under Sections 214 and 216 of the Constitution and Sections 4 and 24 of the Police Act should not be fettered by the Court unless there is a good reason. It further held thus: "It is trite that, the power of the 1st and 2nd Respondents to arrest and detain, pending investigation in some cases is Constitutional and is derived from Sections 214 and 216 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999. I am of the considered view that the mere power cannot by virtue of Section 35(1) of the 1999 Constitution amount to a breach of the Appellant's fundamental right, even if such exercise result in the curtailing of her freedom of movement of liberty. I hasten to say that if contrary is the case, all persons arrested by the Police may as well Claim breach of their fundamental rights. It is also to be noted that in exercising this power to arrest, 1st and 2nd Respondents by virtue of Sections 4 and 24 of the Police Act Cap 359 LFN have a discretion upon reasonable suspicion of committing a Crime to arrest any person including the Appellant. It is generally not the business of the Court to fetter this discretion. See the case of: FAWEHINMI VS. I.G.P (2002) FWLR (PT. 108) 1355 at 1376- 1377. Also in the case of BISHOP NYONG DAVIS AYAKNDUE & ORS VS. BISHOP E.E. EKPRIEREN & ORS(2012) LPELR - 20071 (CA) the Court held inter alia that : "The Law is that the arrest properly made by the Police cannot constitute a breach of fundamental rights. A citizen who is arrested by the Police in the legitimate exercise of their duty on Grounds of reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence cannot sue the Police in Court for breach of fundamental rights."

Per OWOADE, J.C.A. in AKANBI & ORS v. C.O.P KWARA STATE & ORS CITATION: (2018) LPELR-44049(CA)