A Federal High Court in Abuja has declared a 15-member panel that investigated violations during the December 10, 2016 Rivers State election rerun, “unconstitutional”.
In a lengthy ruling on Tuesday, the judge, Gabriel Kolawole, said the composition of the panel was not known to law. The panel was raised by the Inspector General of Police, Ibrahim Idris, to probe allegations of violations and violence during the legislative re-run elections
The team had personnel from the State Security Service, SSS.
Justice Kolawole held that ‘the police panel was unknown to law’ because it lacked constitutional backing.
Consequently, the court held that the report of the panel was not valid and of doubtful source.
Although, the judge described the panel as illegal, he did not disband the panel.
Rather than disbanding the panel, Justice Kolawole said it remained to be seen whether the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, would prosecute those indicted by the police probe panel based on a report that was illegal.
“The police panel is unknown to Nigerian criminal justice system.
It is a contraption. The said report is unknown to law and its validity to be used by the AGF to press a charge is in great doubt,” the court said.
Justice Kolawale said it was wrong for the IGP to constitute a police panel that had the Department of State Security as member.
He said under Section 11 of Police Act, the IGP requires presidential assent to delegate power to another prosecutorial agency.
“The special multi-agency panel is not a statutory body but a product of ministerial act.
“Though the court agreed that the IGP, in line with Section 214 of the 1999 Constitution and Section 4 of the Police Act, that police can conduct investigation of any crime, however such duty must be carried out in strict adherence to the law.”
In addition, the court said it would have quashed the report but for the fact that it was not pleaded before it.
“The report was not presented before the court, if not, it would have been quashed.”
More so, the court held that there was no merit in the 2nd defendant’s (DSS) preliminary objection on grounds of jurisdiction. Consequently, It was dismissed.
