Reported by Simon Daniel Yusuph l Journalist at Weng Global
A Nigerian businessman, Jonathan Nwanze, has approached the Federal High Court in Lagos to challenge the statutory powers of the Nigerian Army to investigate civilians over alleged financial crimes, including money laundering and terrorism financing, while demanding ₦120 million in damages over alleged violations of his fundamental human rights.
The lawsuit raises important legal questions about the limits of military authority in civilian criminal investigations, the responsibilities of specialised law enforcement agencies and the constitutional protections available to individuals during arrest and detention.
The case, marked FHC/LAG/FR/485/2026, was brought against the Nigerian Army, the Chief of Army Staff, the Attorney-General of the Federation and the Commanding Officer of the 81 Battalion, Bonny Cantonment, Victoria Island, Lagos.
At the resumed hearing on Tuesday, November 10, 2026, Nwanze’s lawyer, Olawale Fapohunda, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), informed the court that the Army had released his client without filing any criminal charge against him.
However, Fapohunda told the court that the military was still withholding Nwanze’s international passport and other personal belongings.
The development has placed the legal dispute between the businessman and the military at the centre of a broader debate about the jurisdiction of security agencies and the protection of fundamental rights under Nigeria’s constitutional framework.
Businessman Seeks ₦120 Million Over Alleged Rights Violations
In the fundamental rights enforcement suit, Nwanze is demanding a total of ₦120 million in compensation over what he describes as unlawful actions by the respondents.
The amount is divided into three categories of alleged violations.
He is seeking ₦50 million in damages over his alleged unlawful arrest and detention, ₦40 million for the alleged violation of his right to dignity of the human person and another ₦30 million over the alleged invasion of his residence.
The businessman is also asking the court to make declarations concerning the legality of his arrest, detention, the search of his residence and the continued retention of his personal belongings.
According to his application, the military allegedly invaded his residence at Block E, Flat 1, Alpha Bay Estate, Agungi, Lekki, Lagos, on October 6, 2026.
He further alleged that he was arrested on October 10, four days after the reported invasion.
In his supporting affidavit, Nwanze claimed that his family members, friends, legal representatives and personal doctor were prevented from accessing him during his detention.
These allegations form part of the claims the court is expected to examine. They have not been established as judicial findings, and the respondents are entitled to present their defence.
Army Allegedly Withholds International Passport and Personal Belongings
Although the businessman has reportedly been released from military custody, the status of his personal belongings has emerged as another significant issue in the proceedings.
Fapohunda informed the court that the Army had yet to return Nwanze’s international passport and other personal possessions.
The senior advocate further alleged that when the applicant’s lawyers approached the military to secure the release of the items, they were given conditions that included withdrawing the pending lawsuit.
The allegation introduces another dimension to the dispute, particularly regarding whether property seized or retained during an investigation can continue to be withheld after the individual concerned has been released.
However, the allegation about the conditions reportedly attached to the release of the belongings remains a claim by the applicant’s counsel and has not been established by the court.
Responding during the proceedings, counsel to the first and second respondents, O.E. Alaofin, undertook to facilitate the release of Nwanze’s international passport.
The undertaking provides an important development in the case, although the available court reporting did not establish that all the retained belongings had subsequently been returned.
The issue is expected to remain relevant as the parties continue their arguments before the court.
Lawyer Questions Army’s Authority to Investigate Civilian Financial Crimes
Beyond the compensation being demanded, a central issue in the lawsuit is whether the Nigerian Army possesses the statutory authority to independently investigate civilians suspected of committing financial offences.
In a reply on points of law filed on November 5, 2026, Fapohunda challenged the military’s reliance on its statutory powers to investigate his client.
He argued that the Armed Forces Act primarily provides for military investigations and disciplinary processes involving individuals subject to service law.
According to his submission, Section 270 of the Armed Forces Act identifies the categories of persons subject to military service law, and Nwanze does not fall within those categories.
The lawyer maintained that the Army should not exercise investigative powers over a civilian in relation to financial offences that fall within the statutory responsibilities of civilian law enforcement institutions.
His argument places particular emphasis on the role of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
Fapohunda cited Section 6 of the EFCC Establishment Act, arguing that the commission has statutory responsibilities relating to the investigation of economic and financial crimes, including fraud and money laundering.
He submitted that where the military arrests a civilian suspected of committing such offences, the individual should be transferred to the appropriate civilian law enforcement agency for further investigation and possible prosecution.
The argument does not mean that every arrest involving a civilian is automatically unlawful. Rather, the court is being asked to examine the legal foundation for the particular actions challenged in Nwanze’s application.
The distinction between military security responsibilities and the investigative jurisdiction of civilian agencies is therefore central to the legal questions raised by the case.
Terrorism Financing Allegations Raise Additional Legal Questions
The dispute also involves allegations relating to terrorism financing, an area that introduces additional statutory considerations.
Addressing this aspect, Fapohunda acknowledged that Section 64 of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 provides certain powers to the military, including powers relating to arrest, search and detention.
He also referred to Section 99 of the legislation, which lists the Nigerian Army among relevant agencies under the Act.
However, the lawyer argued that the existence of those provisions does not automatically establish that the Army possesses an unrestricted investigative mandate over civilians suspected of terrorism financing.
He maintained that Section 64 does not expressly confer the investigative powers being relied upon in the circumstances of his client’s case.
According to his submission, Nwanze should have been transferred to the EFCC or the Department of State Services (DSS) for investigation.
This argument raises an important question about how different security and law enforcement institutions should coordinate their responsibilities when an investigation involves allegations that cut across financial crime and national security.
It also places the interpretation of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act within the broader constitutional question of how far military powers can extend when civilians are involved.
The Federal High Court will have to consider the parties’ legal arguments and the relevant statutory provisions before reaching any determination.
Dispute Over Remand Order From Port Harcourt
Another significant issue raised by the applicant concerns an ex parte remand order allegedly obtained from the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt on October 16, 2026.
An ex parte application is generally made to a court without the other party being present at the time of the application.
Fapohunda challenged the respondents’ reliance on the reported remand order, arguing that it could not retrospectively justify his client’s detention, which allegedly began on October 10.
The lawyer pointed out that the detention commenced six days before the date of the order.
His argument is that a subsequent court order should not automatically be treated as legal justification for detention that had already commenced before the order was obtained.
The issue is particularly important because the legality of arrest and detention is governed by constitutional safeguards and applicable judicial procedures.
The court will need to consider the circumstances surrounding the arrest, the timing of the remand order and the legal basis upon which the respondents acted.
Fapohunda also rejected the argument that the fundamental rights suit was premature because investigations and remand proceedings were reportedly ongoing.
He maintained that the existence of an investigation or separate remand proceedings does not prevent the court from examining whether an individual’s constitutional rights have been violated.
The submission seeks to establish that the court can independently examine allegations of unlawful arrest, detention and other rights violations even where criminal investigations remain unresolved.
Constitutional Rights at the Centre of the Lawsuit
Nwanze’s application relies on several provisions of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended.
One of the principal provisions cited is Section 35, which protects the right to personal liberty.
Section 35 establishes constitutional safeguards governing arrest and detention, including requirements relating to lawful procedures and the treatment of individuals in custody.
The businessman is asking the court to declare that his alleged arrest and detention without reasonable cause or suspicion violated his rights under Sections 35(1), 35(4) and 35(5).
He is also relying on Section 37, which guarantees the right to privacy and family life.
According to the applicant, the alleged invasion of his residence violated those constitutional protections.
The case further concerns the seizure and continued retention of his personal property.
Nwanze alleged that the military seized his 2019 Hyundai Creta Evolution GLS and private documents.
He is asking the court to determine whether the seizure and continued retention of those items violated his property rights under Section 44 of the Constitution.
The provisions are significant because constitutional protections apply to individuals regardless of whether they are suspected of criminal activity.
However, these rights operate alongside lawful exceptions and procedures established by legislation. The court must therefore determine whether the actions challenged in the case complied with the applicable legal requirements.
Respondents Seek to Regularise Court Documents
During the resumed proceedings, counsel to the first and second respondents, O.E. Alaofin, informed the court that the respondents had filed applications seeking to regularise their counter-affidavit dated October 27, 2026.
A counter-affidavit is a formal response containing facts and arguments presented by a respondent in opposition to an application.
The filing forms part of the respondents’ efforts to put their position before the court.
Fapohunda told the court that the matter had previously been adjourned to allow the respondents to file their defence and indicated that his client was ready to proceed with the hearing.
However, Justice Deinde Dipeolu observed that the Attorney-General of the Federation, listed as the third respondent, was neither present nor represented during the proceedings.
The judge considered it appropriate to give the Attorney-General an opportunity to participate in the case before proceeding with the substantive hearing.
Consequently, the court adjourned the matter until December 2, 2026.
The adjournment means the legal questions raised by the businessman remain unresolved.
Objection to Commanding Officer’s Position as a Respondent
The applicant’s lawyer also addressed an objection concerning the inclusion of the Commanding Officer of the 81 Battalion as a party to the lawsuit.
The respondents reportedly argued that the office of the commanding officer, as listed, was not a juristic person capable of being sued in its own name.
A juristic person is an individual or legal entity recognised by law as having the capacity to sue or be sued.
Fapohunda opposed the objection, submitting that even if the court accepted the argument concerning the commanding officer, the fundamental rights case could still proceed against the other respondents.
The issue concerns the proper identification of parties in legal proceedings and whether a technical objection to one respondent should prevent the court from considering the substantive allegations against the remaining parties.
The court’s eventual decision on the matter could determine how the parties are properly constituted for the continuation of the proceedings.
Why the Case Matters for Nigeria’s Law Enforcement System
The lawsuit has implications beyond the personal dispute between Nwanze and the Nigerian Army.
At its centre is the relationship between military institutions and civilian law enforcement agencies in a constitutional democracy.
Nigeria has several security and investigative institutions with different statutory responsibilities.
The Nigerian Army is primarily responsible for military operations and national defence, while agencies such as the EFCC and DSS have specific responsibilities established by their governing legislation.
In practice, security investigations can sometimes involve overlapping concerns, particularly where allegations relate to terrorism financing, organised crime and national security.
However, the existence of multiple agencies does not remove the need for each institution to operate within the limits of its legal authority.
The outcome of Nwanze’s case could provide further judicial clarification on the interpretation of relevant legislation and the circumstances under which military authorities may exercise investigative powers involving civilians.
It could also reinforce the importance of constitutional safeguards during arrest, detention and the handling of personal property.
For ordinary Nigerians, the central issue is the assurance that security institutions can perform their duties without disregarding legally protected individual rights.
The case also highlights the importance of accountability, proper documentation and coordination among law enforcement agencies.
What Happens Next?
The Federal High Court has adjourned the matter until December 2, 2026, when the proceedings are expected to continue.
The Attorney-General of the Federation will have an opportunity to participate in the case, while the respondents are expected to address the pending procedural issues and their defence.
The court will ultimately have to consider the applicant’s allegations, the respondents’ responses and the legal arguments concerning the Army’s statutory powers.
The outstanding issue surrounding Nwanze’s international passport and other personal belongings may also remain relevant as the proceedings continue.
Importantly, the court has not yet determined whether the businessman was unlawfully arrested or detained, whether his constitutional rights were violated or whether the Army exceeded its statutory authority.
The ₦120 million being demanded is a claim made by the applicant, not an award granted by the court.
The December 2 hearing will therefore be another important stage in a case that could contribute to the ongoing legal debate over military authority, civilian investigations and constitutional rights in Nigeria.
Weng Global will continue to follow the proceedings and report further developments as they emerge.
Image Description
A Nigerian Army military formation or official Nigerian Army headquarters building, representing the military institution at the centre of a fundamental rights lawsuit before the Federal High Court in Lagos. An alternative editorial photograph could show the exterior of the Federal High Court in Lagos.
Weng Global – stories beyond borders
Sources
- Punch Newspaper – Court proceedings and details of Jonathan Nwanze’s ₦120 million lawsuit.
- TheCable – Reporting on the legal challenge against the Nigerian Army and alleged fundamental rights violations.
- Vanguard – Report on the Army’s investigative powers and the applicant’s legal arguments.
- THISDAY – Reporting on the Federal High Court proceedings and the statutory responsibilities of civilian investigative agencies.
- Independent Newspaper Nigeria – Coverage of the businessman’s lawsuit and the legal arguments concerning military jurisdiction.
