OLEEE: Court Backs Police Powers, Dismisses Dorcas Adeyinka’s N5bn Rights Suit Against Ex-FPRO Adejobi

 

A Federal High Court in Lagos has dismissed Dorcas Adeyinka’s N5bn rights suit against former Police spokesperson Muyiwa Adejobi and others, ruling that the police do not need a court order to declare a suspect wanted during investigations. The court also upheld the powers of the police to arrest, detain and investigate suspects based on criminal complaints. Read the full report.

A Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has dismissed a N5 billion fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by Chief (Mrs) Dorcas Adeyinka against former Force Public Relations Officer, Muyiwa Adejobi, and other police authorities, holding that the police acted within the law in investigating allegations against her.

In a judgment that reaffirmed the investigative powers of law enforcement agencies, Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa ruled that the police do not require a court order before declaring a suspect wanted in the course of an investigation.

The suit, marked FHC/L/CS/1045/2025, had listed ACP Adejobi, the Commissioner of Police, the National Cybercrime Centre, the Nigeria Police Force, and the Inspector-General of Police as respondents.
Adeyinka, through her lawyer, Yakubu Eleto, accused the police of unlawful arrest, detention, harassment, intimidation, coordinated media attacks, and freezing of her bank accounts without a valid court order.

She also challenged the decision of the police to declare her wanted, arguing that the action violated her constitutional rights to dignity, personal liberty, privacy, fair hearing, and freedom of movement.

The applicant sought several reliefs, including orders unfreezing her accounts, removing her name from the wanted list, and restraining the police from further arrest or investigation in connection with the allegations against her.

She also demanded N5 billion as damages for alleged reputational injury and breach of her fundamental rights.

Court documents showed that Adeyinka relied on affidavits, police invitations, and documents relating to criminal proceedings already instituted against her before a Lagos magistrate court.

Her counsel argued that the police exceeded their powers by allegedly arresting and detaining her between July and August 2024 without lawful justification.

The lawyer further contended that declaring her wanted without first obtaining a court order amounted to abuse of office and violated the constitutional presumption of innocence.

But the respondents, represented by CSP Elliott Ijie, countered that the police merely discharged their statutory duty after receiving multiple petitions alleging cyberstalking and cybercrime against the applicant.

According to the police, Adeyinka repeatedly failed to honour invitations extended to her for questioning, making the wanted declaration necessary to secure her cooperation in the ongoing investigation.

The respondents maintained that inviting, arresting, or investigating a suspect based on reasonable suspicion could not amount to a violation of fundamental rights.

Delivering judgment, Justice Lewis-Allagoa held that while the applicant established that she had been invited, arrested, and detained at different times, the police had sufficiently justified those actions based on complaints and petitions before them.

The court held that the police possess constitutional and statutory powers to investigate criminal allegations and, where necessary, arrest or detain suspects in the legitimate discharge of their duties.

The judge further ruled that Adeyinka failed to substantiate claims of torture, dehumanisation, or abuse with credible evidence beyond what he described as “mere allegations” in her affidavit.

On the controversial wanted declaration, the court ruled that the police were entitled to publish such notice where a suspect failed to make herself available for investigation.

Justice Lewis-Allagoa stated categorically that no court order was required before declaring a suspect wanted.

He added that where such publication later turns out to be malicious or defamatory, the appropriate remedy would be a separate defamation suit and not a fundamental rights enforcement action.

The court ultimately held that Adeyinka failed to place “material and plausible facts” before it to establish any breach of her constitutional rights and consequently dismissed the suit in its entirety.