Wike: Court declares police probe panel illegal

Justice Gabriel Kolawole of the Federal High Court, Abuja on Tuesday declared as illegal the 15-man probe panel constituted by the Inspector General of Police, Ibrahim Idris, to investigate the violence, killings, destruction of property and other criminal activities that took place during and after the December 10, 2016 National Assembly rerun election in Rivers State.
Delivering judgement in the suit filed by the Rivers State Government and Governor Nyesom Wike (1st and 2nd plaintiffs) on January 11, 2017, Justice Kolawole said “the police panel was unknown to law” because it lacked constitutional backing.
Consequently, the court held that the report of the panel is not valid and of doubtful source.
In view of this, Justice Kolawole said it remains to be seen whether the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, would prosecute those indicted by the police probe panel based on a report that is illegal.
Kolawole held: “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 Attorney General of the Federation to press a charge is in great doubt.”
According to the court, it was wrong for the IGP to constitute a police panel that had the Department of State Services as member.
Justice Kolawole noted that under Section 11 of Police Act, the IGP requires Presidential assent to delegate power to another prosecutorial agency.
He said: “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, can conduct investigation into 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.
Kolawole held: “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.