In a country where being free is more dangerous than being powerful, Section 35 of the Nigerian Constitution is supposed to be your shield. But what happens when the people meant to protect your rights become the biggest threat to them?
The Supreme Court of Nigeria in EZIEGBO & ANOR v. ASCO INVESTMENT LTD & ANOR (2022) LPELR-56864(SC) reminded the State, the Police, the DSS, and every other uniform-wearing authority that freedom is not a favor and liberty is not negotiable.
According to the Court, you can’t arrest Nigerians on vibes, mere suspicion, or political convenience. Detention must fit strictly within the Constitution’s listed exceptions — or else, it’s not law enforcement. It’s oppression. It’s terrorism with paperwork.
And yet, daily, thousands are locked up illegally — tortured, denied access to lawyers, forgotten. For what? For daring to speak, to protest, to exist in a country that treats liberty like a luxury item.
The Constitution is clear. The law is clear. The Supreme Court is clear. So why is your freedom still up for sale?
This Article is a detailed analysis of the Supreme Court’s judgment in EZIEGBO & ANOR v. ASCO INVESTMENT LTD & ANOR (2022) LPELR-56864(SC), focusing on Section 35 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the right to personal liberty:
In this judgment, Mohammed Lawal Garba, JSC, delivers a clear constitutional position: while personal liberty is a fundamental right, it is not an absolute right. That is, the Constitution both gives and limits this right, Any deprivation of liberty is only lawful when it fits strictly within the enumerated exceptions provided under Section 35 of the 1999 Constitution.
Section 35 guarantees that:
“Every person shall be entitled to his personal liberty and no person shall be deprived of such liberty except in accordance with a procedure permitted by law…”
However, it expressly permits detention or restriction of liberty in specific situations, such as:
- In execution of a court sentence after conviction,
- Upon reasonable suspicion of committing a criminal offence,
- For preventing the spread of infectious disease,
- In the case of juveniles, persons of unsound mind, or drug addicts under proper legal procedures,
- For lawful deportation or extradition, among others.
These exceptions show that liberty is guaranteed, but not unconditional.
The Supreme Court emphasized that:
- The exceptions must be interpreted narrowly and strictly.
- Any limitation, restriction, or derogation from the right must fall squarely within the categories expressly listed in the Constitution.
- Authorities cannot create their own justifications or rely on broad or vague reasons.
Thus, arbitrary arrests, indefinite detentions, or politically motivated abductions are unconstitutional, unless clearly justifiable under Section 35.
Justice Garba, JSC bolstered his reasoning with strong precedents including:
Agbakoba v. Director, SSS (1998) & Director, SSS v. Agbakoba (1999).
These cases confirmed that detention without lawful justification violates the Constitution, even when done in the name of “state security.”
The Supreme Court yeiterated that any deprivation of liberty outside due process is unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court further relied on the case of Fawehinmi v. Abacha to emphasize that national security cannot be used as an excuse to trample on constitutional rights without strict legal backing.
Together, these authorities affirm that government power must bow to constitutional limits when liberty is at stake.
The case under review also reaffirms judicial commitment to civil liberties and due process, and also limits abuse of power by law enforcement, security agencies, and the executive. It further encourages accountability when detaining individuals under any pretext.
Even during emergencies or national security crises, the law must still be followed.
A detention order without legal justification or outside enumerated exceptions is null and void.
The Supreme Court’s decision is a powerful reaffirmation that liberty is the rule, and its deprivation is the exception — and those exceptions are exhaustively listed by the Constitution. No authority, no matter how powerful, can invent new grounds for detaining Nigerians.
