Can a Court Arraignment Cure a Violation of Fundamental Rights? — Insight from Pero & Ors v. Imrahn & Ors

The protection of fundamental human rights is a cornerstone of Nigeria’s constitutional framework. Among these rights are the rights to personal liberty, dignity, and fair hearing, which protect individuals from unlawful arrest, detention, or abuse of power.

An important question that sometimes arises in human rights litigation is this: If a person is later arraigned in court after being unlawfully arrested or detained, does that arraignment cure the earlier violation of their fundamental rights?

The Court of Appeal addressed this issue clearly in Pero & Ors v. Imrahn & Ors.

Background of the Legal Principle

When individuals believe their constitutional rights have been violated, they may approach the court under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules to seek redress.

However, defendants in such cases sometimes argue that once the affected person has been formally charged or arraigned in court, any earlier issue relating to arrest or detention becomes irrelevant.

This argument was examined by the Court of Appeal in Pero & Ors v. Imrahn & Ors.

The Legal Issue

The central question before the court was:

Can the subsequent arraignment of a person in court cure or excuse an earlier violation of that person’s fundamental rights?

Decision of the Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal held clearly that:

Even a subsequent arraignment of an applicant in court does not and cannot cure the defects or effect of violation of his fundamental rights once it has occurred.

In other words, if an arrest or detention was unlawful, the violation already exists and cannot be corrected simply by later charging the person in court.

The court emphasized that fundamental rights violations must be judged based on the circumstances at the time the violation occurred, not by later procedural developments.

This principle was expressed by Ita George Mbaba, JCA.

Supporting Authorities

In reaching its conclusion, the court relied on earlier decisions of the Court of Appeal, including:

• Mangai v. C.O.P. Plateau State
• Emodi Esq v. Registered Trustees of Asaba Sport Club & Ors

These cases reinforce the principle that unlawful arrest or detention cannot be legitimized by subsequent legal proceedings.

Key Legal Principle Established

The decision in Pero & Ors v. Imrahn & Ors establishes an important rule in Nigerian constitutional law:

Once a person’s fundamental rights have been violated through wrongful arrest or detention, a later arraignment in court cannot cure or erase that violation.

This means:

• The violation remains actionable in court.
• The victim may still seek damages or other remedies.
• Authorities cannot justify unlawful detention after the fact by simply bringing charges later.

Why This Case Is Important

This decision strengthens the protection of fundamental human rights in Nigeria.

It sends a clear message that:

• Law enforcement authorities must follow due process from the beginning.
• Citizens cannot be arrested or detained arbitrarily.
• Courts will hold authorities accountable for violations of constitutional rights.

Practical Implication for Citizens and Lawyers

For individuals and legal practitioners, this case confirms that:

• A wrongful arrest or detention remains unlawful, even if charges are later filed.
• Victims can still file an action for enforcement of fundamental rights.
• Courts may award compensation or other remedies for the violation.

Case Citation

Pero & Ors v. Imrahn & Ors
Court: Court of Appeal
Principle: Subsequent arraignment cannot cure violation of fundamental rights
Judge: Ita George Mbaba, JCA
Relevant Page: P. 30, Paras B–D