The Inspector-General of Police (IGP) has been dragged before the Federal High Court in Abuja over allegations of breaches of fundamental rights.
The applicants, Egbogu-Onyeka Doris Ogochukwu and Dorigold Enterprises Limited, filed a N20 billion fundamental rights enforcement suit against the IGP and others over allegations of intimidation, harassment, unlawful threats of arrest, and an illegal raid on a residence in the Federal Capital Territory.
Others joined as respondents in the suit alongside the IGP are the Nigeria Police Force, the Police Service Commission (PSC), the Deputy Inspector-General of Police in charge of the Force Criminal Investigation Department (FCID), and two private individuals.
They are asking the court to declare that a series of actions allegedly carried out by police officers at the instance of private individuals violated their constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights.
Also named as respondents are Mrs Esther Nkama Animashaun, trading under the name and style of ELSH Luxury Design, and Miss Obiageli Nkama.
In the suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1432/2026 and filed through their counsel, Sylvanus E.O.B. Maliki, the applicants alleged that they had been subjected to repeated police invitations, threats of arrest and detention, harassment, intimidation, and public embarrassment over what they described as a purely civil dispute.
They contended that the alleged actions infringed upon their rights to the dignity of the human person, personal liberty, privacy, freedom of expression, freedom of movement, fair hearing, and freedom of association, as guaranteed under the 1999 Constitution and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
The application, brought under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009, alleged that senior police officers were deployed to intervene in a private dispute arising from a failed personal relationship and financial transactions.
In an affidavit deposed to by Daniel Ogboji, a litigation executive with the law firm of Sylvanus E.O.B. Maliki & Co. (Oxygen Chambers), counsel to the applicants, the court was told that the first applicant was unable to personally depose to the affidavit because she was allegedly being “hunted” by police officers acting at the instance of the fifth and sixth respondents.
According to the affidavit, the first applicant, Managing Director of Dorigold Enterprises Limited, stated that she met the fifth respondent through a mutual acquaintance at the Commonwealth of Zion Assembly (COZA) in Abuja in March 2025.
She claimed that, after learning the respondent was facing eviction from her rented apartment, she accommodated her and her children out of compassion.
She further alleged that she spent millions of naira assisting the fifth respondent, including providing N2 million as a gift, N4.15 million for rent, N6 million for vehicle repairs, N3 million for school fees, and several other financial interventions.
The applicant alleged that, despite the assistance, the fifth respondent failed to secure accommodation, continued demanding money, and later left her residence with food items before driving away her vehicle and allegedly selling it to a third party without her consent.
She further claimed that, after their relationship deteriorated, the fifth respondent threatened to use family members serving in the Nigeria Police Force to “deal with” her and force her out of Abuja.
According to the affidavit, on 20 June 2026, five police officers allegedly led by the sixth respondent stormed the applicant’s residence at House D38B, Alwadood Ali Lassa Boulevard, Kuchiyako Annex, Kuje, Abuja, at about 8:50 a.m. without a search warrant or court order.
They alleged that the officers searched the premises and removed several items, including a vehicle, international passports belonging to the applicant, her children, employees and clients, educational certificates, mobile phones, marriage and birth certificates, and other personal belongings.
The applicants further alleged that the officers publicly branded the first applicant a criminal in the presence of neighbours, thereby damaging her reputation.
They also claimed they had continued to receive invitations, WhatsApp messages, and telephone calls from police officers threatening prolonged detention, forcing them to abandon both their residence and business premises out of fear.
The applicants maintained that the disagreement between the first applicant and the fifth respondent was purely civil in nature and accused the police of allowing themselves to be used to intimidate and harass them.
They further said while the police possess constitutional powers to investigate criminal allegations, those powers must be exercised strictly in accordance with the Constitution and not be deployed to settle private disputes.
In the accompanying written address, the applicants’ counsel argued that the respondents’ alleged conduct violated Sections 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 41, and 46 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantee the rights to dignity, personal liberty, fair hearing, privacy, freedom of expression, freedom of movement, and the enforcement of fundamental rights.
The applicants are seeking declarations that the alleged invasion of their residence and seizure of their property were unconstitutional, unlawful, and amounted to a gross violation of their fundamental rights.
Among the reliefs sought are an order directing the respondents, jointly and severally, to pay N20 billion as exemplary damages, an order compelling the police to return all items allegedly taken during the 20 June operation, and a directive requiring the respondents to publish public apologies in at least three national newspapers.
They are also asking the court to grant a perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from further inviting, intimidating, arresting, detaining, or harassing them over issues connected with the dispute, except in accordance with due process and an order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
The applicants further argued that the police were improperly deployed to resolve a civil disagreement in breach of the Constitution and the Administration of Criminal Justice Act.
No date has been fixed for the hearing of the suit.
The allegations contained in the suit are those of the applicants and have not been determined by the court.
The respondents had not filed their responses at the time of filing this report.
