Court orders police to pay Charley Boy N50m as compensation for being tear-gassed and hospitalised

SOCIAL critic and Our Mumu Don Do movement founder Charles Oputa popularly known as Charley Boy has been awarded N50m ($137,410) in compensation by a federal high court in Abuja after the Nigerian Police Force (NPF) violated his rights last year.

On Monday, the court ordered the NPF, the inspector-general of police and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) police commissioner to pay him the damages.  Justice John Tsoho who heard the case also ordered the respondents to tender an public apology to the applicant, which should be published in two national newspapers.

His judgement was on a fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by Charley Boy on March 29 this year. In his affidavit, Charley Boy said about 100 policemen from the FCT Police Command, invaded the Unity Fountain in Abuja on August 8, 2017 and attacked him and his group with teargas canisters, hot water cannon and wild police dogs.

According to the affidavit, the attack happened during a Resume or Resign protest when he led other activists to protest the prolonged absence of President Muhammadu Buhari from Nigeria on account of his medical vacation in the UK. Charley Boy claimed that the attack by the policemen was so severe that he collapsed in the process and was rushed to the hospital.

Furthermore, Charley Boy claimed that the police attacked them because of claims that their protest over the president’s absence, which had exceeded 90 days on the second day of their daily sit-out protest, had gone international and brought serious embarrassment to the country. In his judgement, Justice Tsoho rejected the respondents’ claim that miscreants invaded or stormed the premises of the protest, adding that there was no evidence to support such claims.

Justice Tsoho ruled that the applicant was entitled under the constitution, to stage a peaceful protest, noting that protest is a constitutionally guaranteed right, provided it is done peacefully. He further noted that even if miscreants were on the scene to hijack the protest, the police possess enough measures to dislodge such persons and maintain law and order.

Also, the judge noted that the respondents, in their counter-affidavit, admitted that they resorted to using teargas canisters and hot water canon in order to disperse the miscreants who suddenly took over the protest. Justice Tsoho said the respondents’ claim that the teargas canisters and hot water canon were not directed at the defendants lacks substance as teargas circulates and affects all persons around where it is expended.

Justice Tsoho held that the respondents violated the applicant’s fundamental rights to dignity of the human person, freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association as enshrined in sections 34, 39, and 40 of the constitution. He ruled that the law is that the court has the right to grant redress to anyone whose right is violated and the applicant is entitled to a remedy.