In the Supreme Court
On FRIDAY, 13TH JULY, 2001
SC.45/2000
Before Their Lordships
ADOLPHUS GODWIN KARIBI-WHYTE JSC
ABUBAKAR BASHIR WALI JSC
UTHMAN MOHAMMED JSC
ANTHONY IKECHUKWU IGUH JSC
ALOYSIUS IYORGYER KATSINA-ALU JSC
Between
LT. GEN ISHAYA RIZI BAMAIYI (RTD.)
And
A. G. OF THE FEDERATION
LTD. GEN. ALIYU GUSAU (RTD.)NSA
BRIGADIER-GEN. ALEXANDER
MSHEBWALA COMMANDER
BRIGADE OF GUARDS
INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE
The appellant who was the Chief of staff of the Nigerian Army during the regime of late General Sani Abacha was invited by the 2nd respondent for questioning over his alleged role in facilitating the provision of arms used in the attempted murder of Mr. Alex Ibru. The appellant was detained in a house at Forte IBB Barracks, Abuja. The appellant sought leave to enforce his fundamental right challenging his detention and applied to the Federal High Court that his arrest is without justification, illegal, unlawful and consequentially, a violation of his fundamental right as secured by sections 35 and 41 of the 1999 Constitution. He also asked for some other prayers. The trial court granted most of the prayers sought but the appellant was not released. Instead, the was flown to Lagos where he was arraigned before a Chief Magistrate on a two-count charge of conspiracy and murder. He was remanded in Kirikiri Security Prison, Lagos. The appellant's counsel filed several applications seeking a committal Order for the 1st respondent for contempt of the court's order, release of the appellant from Kirikiri Prison and for stay of proceedings in suit No. MK/A/912 pending the hearing of the appellant's application for the enforcement of his rights. When the suit-came up for hearing before the trial court, the appellant's counsel moved Account to refer the following constitutional question for the interpretation of the Court of Appeal. Whether by the precision of section 174 of the Constitution or any provisions the Federal Attorney- General has the power to constitute the Special Investigation Panel the investigated the applicant and the report which form the basis of the charge against him before the Magistrates Court? The Court of Appeal refused to answer the question on the ground that it did not arise from the proceedings before the trial Court. The case was sent back to the High Court for continuation of hearing of the applications. Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.