Mr. Gabriel Jim-Jaja, the appellant, had on 5th February, 2002 obtained a loan from Nelson Douglas, the 3rd respondent, and promised to repay the same on or before 6th March, 2002. He could not honour his obligation and understanding to repay the loan as and when it became due. By a letter dated 19th September, 2002 the 3rd respondent, Nelson Douglas, had sought the "indulgence" of the Commissioner of Police, 1st respondent, "to please act fast to bring Mr. Gabriel Jim-jaja to book in order to save unsuspecting members of the public from failing prey to him." The 3rd respondent had alleged earlier in this same letter that:

The letter further alleged that the certificate of occupancy Mr. Gabriel Jim-Jaja. the appellant, gave to the 3rd respondent as collateral to secure the loan was fake and that the appellant did not own such property.

The appellant does not dispute his indebtedness to the 3rd respondent. He says he owes the 3ld respondent N700.000.00 and that he "needs time to pay same as the business transaction into which he invested the said money has not materialized".

Acting on the 3rd respondent's letter dated 19'h September. 2002. exhibit "ND.I” in the counter-affidavit of the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner of Police. Rivers State (1st respondent), caused Inspector Alari, 2nd respondent, an officer under him (the 1st respondent.) to arrest the appellant. The appellant was arrested on 23rd September, 2002 and was told at the Police Station that he was arrested for collecting a loan from the 3rd respondent which he had refused to pay. The 1st and 2nd respondents offered no denial to this assertion contained in paragraph 7 of the affidavit in support of the application for enforcement of the appellant's fundamental right. The 3rd respondent, an acclaimed registered money-lender, claims in his counter-affidavit that he "did not write petition for the repayment or collection by the police of a loan of N700,000.00 against the (appellant) to the police". He had earlier in the same counter-affidavit deposed, in paragraph 3 thereof, that he did not know what transpired at the police station between the appellant and the police. There is no evidence on the record that the police did any preliminary investigation on the 3rd respondent's allegation before they arrested and detained the appellant. They seemed to have acted perfunctorily and rashly.

The loan agreement between the appellant and the 3rd respondent, exhibit 'ND.2' in the counter-affidavit, does not show that the appellant offered his certificate of occupancy as collateral for the loan said to be N 1,400,000.00 therein. As I pointed out earlier the appellant was arrested on the basis of the 3rd respondent's petition or complaint to the police.

On 25th September, 2002 the appellant's solicitors wrote to the 1st respondent complaining that the matter the appellant was arrested for on 23rd September, 2002 was "basically a civil case and more so bordering on a debt recovery"; that the police "absolutely have nothing to do with debt recovery" and that the police have wrongfully subjected the appellant to intimidation, humiliation and utter embarrassment. The solicitors demanded immediate and unconditional release of the appellant from police detention or custody. The letter is exhibited in the applicant's verifying affidavit.

On 8th October, 2002 the appellant, as applicant for enforcement of his fundamental rights, applied ex parte for leave to enforce his fundamental human rights against the three named respondent. Paragraph 12 of the verifying affidavit avers-