Businessman Jonathan Nwanze challenges the Nigerian Army‘s powers to investigate civilians, demanding N120m over alleged unlawful arrest and detention.
A legal dispute over the extent of the Nigerian Army’s investigative powers has emerged at the Federal High Court in Lagos, where businessman Jonathan Nwanze is questioning the military’s authority to investigate civilians over alleged financial and terrorism-related offences.
Nwanze is asking the court to determine whether the Army can independently investigate individuals who are not members of the Armed Forces for suspected offences such as fraud, money laundering and terrorism financing.
The businessman is also seeking N120 million in damages over his alleged unlawful arrest and detention, the invasion of his residence and the continued retention of his personal belongings by military authorities.
The matter came up for further proceedings before Justice D.I. Dipeolu, where the court received updates on the applicant’s release and the outstanding issues surrounding his seized properties.
Representing Nwanze, senior advocate Olawale Fapohunda of E & O Legal told the court that his client had regained his freedom after being held by the military but had not recovered all the items allegedly taken from him.
According to the lawyer, the Nigerian Army released the businessman without formally charging him with any offence. However, his international passport and other personal possessions reportedly remained in military custody.
Fapohunda disclosed that efforts by the applicant’s legal representatives to secure the return of the belongings had allegedly encountered difficulties.
He claimed that the lawyers were presented with certain conditions, one of which was that Nwanze should discontinue the pending fundamental rights case against the military authorities.
The allegation introduced another dimension to the dispute, as the applicant’s legal team maintained that the release of his personal documents and other belongings should not be made conditional upon abandoning the court action.
In response, O.E. Alaofin, who appeared for the first and second respondents, assured the court that arrangements would be made to facilitate the release of Nwanze’s international passport.
Fapohunda also informed the judge that the respondents had previously been given time to prepare their defence. He said his client was ready to proceed with the hearing, subject to the court’s schedule.
The lawyer further confirmed that the respondents had filed applications seeking to regularise their counter-affidavit dated October 27, 2026.
However, the proceedings could not advance to the substantive hearing because the Attorney-General of the Federation, listed as the third respondent, was neither present nor represented by a lawyer.
Justice Dipeolu held that the AGF should be given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings before the matter could continue.
The court consequently adjourned the case until December 2, 2026, for hearing.
Nwanze demands compensation over alleged rights violations
In the fundamental rights suit, Nwanze is pursuing financial compensation against the Nigerian Army, the Chief of Army Staff, the Attorney-General of the Federation and the Commanding Officer of the 81 Battalion, Bonny Cantonment, Victoria Island, Lagos.
His N120 million claim is divided into three categories, reflecting the alleged violations he wants the court to address.
He is demanding N50 million for his alleged unlawful arrest and detention, N40 million for the claimed violation of his right to dignity and another N30 million over the alleged invasion of his residence.
The businessman is also seeking judicial declarations that his arrest and detention without reasonable grounds violated his right to personal liberty under Section 35(1), (4) and (5) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
He maintains that the circumstances surrounding his arrest and subsequent detention failed to comply with the constitutional safeguards governing the deprivation of personal freedom.
Another aspect of his complaint concerns the alleged entry into his home at Block E, Flat 1, Alpha Bay Estate, Agungi, Lekki, Lagos.
According to his court filings, the residence was allegedly invaded on October 6, 2026, while his arrest reportedly took place on October 10.
He is asking the court to declare that the incident violated his right to privacy and family life as protected under Section 37 of the Constitution.
Nwanze has also challenged the seizure and continued retention of his 2019 Hyundai Creta Evolution GLS and certain private documents.
He argues that the military’s actions amounted to an infringement of his property rights under Section 44 of the Constitution.
In an affidavit supporting the suit, the businessman further alleged that his family members, friends, lawyers and personal doctor were prevented from visiting him during his detention.
EFCC, not army, should investigate financial crimes, lawyer argues
A central argument advanced by Nwanze’s legal team is that the military’s statutory responsibilities should not be extended beyond the limits established by law.
In a reply on points of law filed on November 5, 2026, Fapohunda challenged the Army’s authority to investigate civilians over alleged economic and financial crimes.
He argued that the Armed Forces Act primarily provides the framework for dealing with military personnel and offences committed by individuals subject to service law.
Referring to Section 270 of the Act, the senior advocate explained that the law identifies specific categories of persons who fall within the military justice system.
He maintained that his client does not belong to any of those categories and should therefore not be subjected to military investigative procedures under the provisions of the Act.
On the allegations involving fraud and money laundering, Fapohunda pointed to the statutory responsibilities of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.
He cited Section 6 of the EFCC Establishment Act, arguing that the commission has the mandate to investigate financial crimes and related economic offences.
According to the lawyer, military authorities who arrest civilians over suspected offences outside their jurisdiction should transfer such individuals to the appropriate civilian law enforcement agencies for investigation and possible prosecution.
Terrorism law also features in legal disagreement
The applicant’s counsel also examined the respondents’ reliance on the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022.
While acknowledging that Section 64 of the legislation provides certain powers relating to the arrest, search and detention of suspected terrorism offenders, Fapohunda argued that the provision should not be interpreted as granting the Army unlimited investigative authority over civilians.
He also acknowledged Section 99, which lists the Nigerian Army among agencies relevant to the implementation of the legislation.
However, he maintained that the distinction between powers of arrest and detention and the authority to conduct investigations must be properly considered.
On that basis, he argued that Nwanze should have been transferred to the EFCC or the Department of State Services for appropriate investigation, depending on the nature of the allegations.
Dispute over remand order and continued detention
Fapohunda also questioned the legal effect of an ex parte remand order allegedly obtained by the respondents from the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt on October 16, 2026.
His objection was based on the timing of the order in relation to his client’s arrest.
According to the applicant’s legal team, Nwanze had already been in detention since October 10, meaning the remand order was reportedly obtained six days after his arrest.
The lawyer argued that the subsequent order could not retrospectively validate any unlawful detention that might have occurred before it was issued.
He further submitted that the existence of criminal allegations does not strip an individual of constitutional protections or excuse law enforcement authorities from following established legal procedures.
Fapohunda equally rejected the respondents’ position that the fundamental rights action was premature because investigations and remand proceedings were allegedly ongoing.
He maintained that the court retained the authority to examine alleged violations of fundamental rights, irrespective of whether separate criminal investigations were still in progress.
The legal team also challenged an objection concerning the inclusion of the Commanding Officer of the 81 Battalion as a respondent.
The respondents reportedly argued that the office was not a juristic person capable of being sued.
However, Fapohunda contended that even if the court upheld that objection, the development would not necessarily terminate the entire action, as the case could continue against the other named respondents.
The court is expected to hear the substantive arguments when proceedings resume on December 2, 2026.
About The Author
