By Ghazali Ibrahim
The Federal High Court in Lagos has delivered a landmark ruling restricting the use of “holding charge” and remand proceedings, holding that detention must strictly comply with constitutional safeguards and be ordered only by courts with proper jurisdiction.
In the case of Olajide Akinola Abiodun v. Attorney-General of the Federation & Anor (FHC/L/CS/519/2025), Justice A. Lewis-Allagoa ruled that the legality of holding charge is not absolute but depends on adherence to key constitutional provisions, including reasonable suspicion and the time limits stipulated under Section 35 of the 1999 Constitution.
Crucially, the court held that a Magistrate Court cannot lawfully order the remand of a suspect where it lacks jurisdiction over the substantive offence. It clarified that the constitutional requirement is not merely to bring a suspect before “a court,” but before a court of competent jurisdiction.
The judge ruled that any remand order issued by a court without such jurisdiction is fundamentally defective and cannot justify detention, regardless of compliance with procedural laws such as Section 293 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA).
The decision directly impacts the common practice of presenting suspects accused of serious offences such as terrorism or money laundering, which fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court before Magistrate Courts for remand pending legal advice. The court found such practices constitutionally unsustainable.
While the court declined to declare holding charge entirely unconstitutional, it emphasized that any detention outside constitutional time limits or without jurisdictional competence is unlawful.
Although the reliefs sought by the applicant were not granted, the judgment reinforces the principle that personal liberty can only be curtailed through due process before a properly empowered court, providing a stronger legal basis for challenging questionable remand orders.
