Businessman Jonathan Nwanze has challenged the Nigerian Army’s statutory power to probe civilians over alleged financial crimes, including money laundering and terrorism financing.
He is seeking N120 million damages in a basic rights claim for his alleged illegal arrest, imprisonment and invasion of his residence, The Nation reports.
Counsel representing Nwanze, Olawale Fapohunda (SAN) of E & O Legal, told the Federal High Court in Lagos today at the resumed hearing of the matter that his client had been discharged by the Army without being charged with any wrongdoing.
But Fapohunda informed the court that the military was still retaining Nwanze’s foreign passport and other personal items.
He said that the lawyers of the applicant were offered certain requirements when they approached the Army for securing the release of the items including withdrawal of the pending complaint.
Counsel to the first and second respondents, O.E. Alaofin, in response, committed to secure the release of Nwanze’s passport.
“The matter was last adjourned to allow the respondents file their defence. The applicant is ready to proceed with the hearing at the convenience of the court,” Fapohunda added.
However, the court heard from Alaofin that the respondents filed motions seeking to regularise their counter affidavit dated October 27, 2026.
Justice D.I. Dipeolu observed that the third respondent, the Attorney-General of the Federation was neither represented nor present in court. The judge ruled that the party should be heard.
The matter was adjourned for hearing on December 2, 2026.
In suit No. FHC/LAG/FR/485/2026, Nwanze is claiming the sum of N120million as damages from the Nigerian Army, the Chief of Army Staff, the Attorney-General of the Federation and the Commanding Officer, 81 Battalion, Bonny Cantonment, Victoria Island, Lagos.
The applicant is asking for N50 million for his alleged unlawful arrest and imprisonment, N40 million for the purported breach of his right to dignity of the human person and N30 million for the alleged invasion of his residence.
He is also seeking declarations that his arrest and detention without reasonable and probable cause violates his right to personal liberty under Section 35(1), (4) and (5) of the Constitution.
Nwanze is asking the court to declare that the alleged invasion of his dwelling was a breach of his right to privacy and family life under Section 37 of the Constitution.
He further claims that the confiscation and ongoing detention of his 2019 Hyundai Creta Evolution GLS and private documents infringed on his right to own property under Section 44 of the Constitution.
The applicant said his residence at Block E, Flat 1, Alpha Bay Estate, Agungi, Lekki, Lagos, was invaded on 6th October, 2026. He was detained four days later on October 10th.
In his affidavit in support of his application, Nwanze stated that he was denied access to his family members, friends, lawyers and his personal doctor while in jail by the respondents.
In a November 5, 2026 reply on questions of law, Fapohunda argued the Army lacks jurisdiction to probe civilians for alleged financial crimes. Locate Legal Aid
He said the Armed Forces Act was largely intended to give the military the jurisdiction to investigate acts committed by people subject to military law.
He said Nwanze does not belong to the class of persons subject to service legislation under section 270 of the Act, which defines certain categories of military personnel.
He said the investigation of financial crimes including fraud and money laundering is part of the legislative responsibility of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) as prescribed by Section 6 of its Establishment Act.
He said if the Army arrested a civilian on those kind of charges, the individual should be handed over to the relevant law enforcement body for investigation and possibly prosecution.
On claims bordering on terrorism financing, Fapohunda said Section 64 of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 authorises the military to arrest, search and detain suspects. He said Section 99 listed the Army among the relevant agencies under the Act.
He however maintained that Section 64 does not explicitly place investigative powers on the Army, adding that his client ought to have been handed over to the EFCC or the Department of State Services for inquiry.
Fapohunda also disputed the reliance by the respondents on an ex parte remand order allegedly obtained from the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt on October 16, 2026.
The order could not retrospectively justify the purported imprisonment of Nwanze, which began on October 10, six days before the order was issued, he said.
The applicant’s counsel further argued that criminal allegations against his client did not destroy his constitutional rights, saying that any arrest or detention must be in accordance with legally specified processes.
He further dismissed the respondents’ position that the suit based on fundamental rights was premature as there were purportedly pending investigations and remand proceedings.
Fapohunda submitted that the existing proceedings did not oust the court of jurisdiction to entertain the claimed breach of rights.
Fapohunda contended that, even if the objection raised by the respondents to the joinder of the Commanding Officer of the 81 Battalion as a party on the basis that the office was not a juristic person that could be sued prevailed, the suit might proceed against the other respondents.
About the Author
