*.
|
.
|
21, Counse! for the Defendant State (Federal Republic of Nigeria) further averred
that the sentence
of the Applicant was awaiting
confirmation
by the
appropriate authority when he brought his case before the Honourable Court.
That indeed, Article 35(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria as amended allows preventive detention in execution of a sentence or
order of court in respect of a criminal offence for which an individual has been
found guilty. Moreover, in regard to Section 148 of the Armed Forces Act
[Armed Forces Act Cap A20, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN)], a member
of the Armed Forces accused of a crime may be detained in military custody
while awaiting confirmation of the sentence imposed on him. He therefore
concluded that Mr. Alimu Akeem was detained in accordance with the Law in
force in the Federal Republic of Nigeria. He affirmed that Alimu Akeem should
have
made
he deemed
prejudice.
the best use of the channels
the Army
of the Federal
of redress
provided
Republic of Nigeria
had
by the said Law if
caused
him any
a2e Counsel for Federal Republic of Nigeria contended further that the Law in force
in the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the terms ana conditions obtaining in
the Army are incumbent upon the Applicant as a member of the Armed Forces.
He maintained that Alimu Akeem,
Nigeria,
is subjeckgase
the..Law
as a public officer of the Federal
on
the
protection
of
public.
Républic of
offigers,
[Public
Officers Protection Act, Cap. P41, LFN] and that in regard to Section 2(a) supra,
he should have filed his case within three (3) months after the accrual of cause
of action. That the Applicant is therefore bound to observe the condition
precedent required by Section 148 of the Armed Forces Act before instituting
the suit before the Honourable
Court.
23» The Defendant State argued that in exercising its jurisdiction provided for in
the new Article 9 of the Supplementary Protocol on the Court as amended by
the 19 January 2005 Supplementary Protocol, the Honourable Court must
expressly take account of the domestic Laws of Nigeria, notably the ones cited above.
a)
24, Counsel for the Federal Republic of Nigeria alleged that since the Applicant was
sentenced by a competent Nigerian court for the offences brought against him,
the ECOWAS Court cannot act as an appeal court and thus interfere with the
decision made by the domestic court of e Member State. He cited the case law
of the Court in relation to the judgment on the c ase concerning Fl-Hadj Mame
Pret
tha
fires
a ses
ae
} et
«
Abdou Gaye v. Republic of Senegal, 2€ January 2 Wd
me
He Turcther
assertec
that