Court orders IGP to pay N100 million to widow over husband’s death in police custody

A Federal High Court in Abuja, on Wednesday, ordered the Inspector-General (I-G) of Police to pay a woman, Mary Kajo, the sum of N100 million over the arrest, unlawful detention, torture and alleged death of her husband, Mark Kajo

Delivering judgement, Justice Inyang Ekwo also ordered the police authorities to pay the sum of N500,000 as the cost of filing the suit.

Mr Ekwo directed a five per cent post-judgement interest on the fine until the judgement debt is fully settled.

The judge, who observed that the police authorities did not challenge the case of the applicant, said, “The position of the law remains that affidavit evidence which is not challenged or controverted howsoever, is deemed admitted and can be relied upon by a court.”

He, therefore, declared that the killing of the late Mr Mark in custody by agents of the police was wrongful, illegal and unconstitutional.

READ ALSO: BREAKING: Supreme Court Takes Decision On Suit Against Another APC Governor

He said it violated Mr Mark’s constitutional rights under Section 33 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and Article 4 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, CAP.A9, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

He said the deceased had a fundamental right to life guaranteed and enforceable under the laws.

“I find that the applicant has established that the fundamental rights of her husband, Mark Kajo, have been breached by the inexplicable cold-blooded extra-judicial killing of the deceased in the custody of the 1st to 3rd respondents.

“Nothing can ever be more barbaric and nastier than this kind of death in the hands of law enforcement agents whose statutory and constitutional duty is to protect lives and property.

“By not filing any process in this case, I presume that the 1st—3rd respondents are least perturbed about such loss of a citizen’s life in their custody and the outcome of this suit.

“Where it is established that the fundamental right of a citizen has been breached, the law is trite that damages in compensation, legally and naturally follow every act of violation of citizen’s fundamental right;” he said.

Mary Kajo had, in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/600/2023, sued the Nigeria Police Force, I-G, Benue Commissioner of Police and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) as 1st to 4th respondents respectively.

In the affidavit she deposed to on Mary 2, 2023, Ms Mary averred that her husband, a plumber, was arrested, detained and tortured by the police and eventually executed without trial.

She said Mr Mark was arrested by officers of the police on January 1, 2018, around Wurukum Market in Makurdi.

READ ALSO: FCT Minister Wike Vows to Make It Hot for Bandits, Launches Confidence-Building Visits to Area Councils

According to her, on January 1, 2018, her husband left the house for Wurukum market in order to purchase medicine for their ailing child who woke up that morning not feeling too strong but did not return home; neither did he call to check up on the sick child.

She said the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) at Benue Police Headquarters in Makurdi told her that one Mr Aondover in their custody made a confessional statement that he stole a car and gave it to Mr Mark.

Ms Mary averred that her husband was moved to Police Headquarters in Abuja and referred to the Federal Special Anti-Robbery Squad (FSARS) at Area 3.

The mother of five further alleged that the police told the North-Central Zone of the Presidential Panel Hearing on SARS Reform 2018 where a petition was filed that her husband was killed in custody by armed thugs.

The armed thugs attacked the vehicle conveying them to recover hidden arms and in the course of exchanging fire, three of the suspects were shot and died on the spot, including her husband and their corpses were deposited at the University of Abuja Teaching Hospital Morgue in Gwagwalada.

But the AGF, in its counter affidavit deposed to by Adedayo Adeboye, an official in the office, argued that none of Ms Mary’s averments was against the office.

(NAN)