JUSTICE Abdulaziz Anka of a Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has adjourned in Tuesday failed to deliver judgement in a N300m Fundamental Rights Enforcement Suit brought against the Inspector General of Police by alleged billionaire kidnapper, Chukwudumeme Onwuamadike, popularly known as Evans.
The Court had fixed August 29 to deliver judgment in the suit.
Joined as respondents in the suit are the Nigeria Police Force, Commissioner of Police, Lagos State and the Special Anti-Robbery Squad, SARS, Lagos State Police Command. In the rights enforcement suit filed on his behalf by a Lagos-based lawyer, Olukoya Ogungbeje, Evans is praying for the order of court to direct the respondents to immediately charge him to court if there is any case against him in accordance with Sections 35 (1) (c) (3) (4) (5) (a) (b) and 36 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
In the alternative, he is praying the court to compel the respondents to immediately release him unconditionally in the absence of any offence that will warrant his being charged to court.
Evans is further contending in the suit that his continued detention by the respondents since June 10, 2017, without being charged to court or released on bail is an infringement on his fundamental human rights.
He argued that the respondents ought to have charged him to court in accordance with the provisions of Sections 35 and 36 of the Constitution.
However, at the scheduled hearing billed for today, Tuesda, August 29th, 2017, the hearing was stalled because the Commissioner of Police Legal, David Igbodo turned up in court with an application claiming that the Inspector General of Police (IGP) and the Nigerian Police Force had not been party to the proceedings and the court could not go ahead with judgment without hearing from both parties.
He also told the court that the counsel to Evans, Olukoya Ogungbeje had failed to serve the court documents personally on the two respondents who were based in Abuja.
Mr. Igbodo also claimed that one Henry Obaze who represented both respondents in court at the last date had no authorization to do so.