Barrister David Akatugba, an Abuja-based human rights lawyer, has instituted a suit before the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court against the FCT Command of the Department of State Services (DSS) and two individuals over alleged harassment, intimidation and violation of his fundamental human rights arising from a civil land transaction.
The defendants in the suit are the FCT Command of the DSS, Mr. Mike Israel Nwadiogbu and Mr. Victor Japhet Olegbunne.
In the originating summons filed before the court, Akatugba is seeking the enforcement of his fundamental rights to dignity of the human person, personal liberty and privacy as guaranteed under Sections 34, 35, 37 and 46 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).
The applicant alleged that operatives of the DSS, acting at the instance of the second and third respondents, repeatedly invited, harassed, threatened and intimidated him over a dispute arising from the sale of landed property, which he described as a purely civil transaction.
According to the court documents, Akatugba claimed he received a series of telephone calls, text messages and WhatsApp messages allegedly threatening him with arrest and detention unless he complied with payment demands made by the other parties.
He is asking the court to determine whether the DSS has the constitutional or statutory authority to intervene in a private civil dispute by inviting, threatening or detaining a citizen with the aim of compelling payment or resolving a contractual disagreement.
The lawyer also wants the court to decide whether the alleged actions of the second and third respondents, in using the instrumentality of the DSS to pursue a private claim, amount to an abuse of state powers and an infringement of his constitutionally guaranteed rights.
As part of the legal basis for his application, Akatugba relied on Articles 4, 5, 6 and 12 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap A9, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.
He maintained that the alleged acts of harassment and intimidation violated his rights to dignity, personal liberty and privacy, and urged the court to grant appropriate reliefs to protect his constitutional freedoms.
No date has been fixed for the hearing of the matter. However, court documents indicate that the respondents have been given five working days to file their responses to the originating summons.
