Case Name

Agbakoba v Director, State Security Services & Anor

Topic

INTERPRETATION- Citizen has right to hold passport and not to have it arbitrarily withdrawn;
onus on those alleged to have infringed right to justify restriction
MOVEMENT- Citizen has right to hold passport and not to have it arbitrarily withdrawn; onus
on those alleged to have infringed right to justify restriction

Tribunal

Court of Appeal (Lagos)

Country

Nigeria (Africa)

Case Date

06 Jul 1994

Judge(s)

Kalgo JCA, Uwaifo JCA, Ayoola JCA

Resume:
The appellant, President of a Nigerian non-governmental human rights organisation, had been invited
to participate in a human rights conference in the Netherlands. At the airport his passport was
impounded by a state security officer without giving reasons. The applicant sought a declaration that
the action of the officer violated his constitutional rights to personal liberty, freedom of thought,
freedom of expression and freedom of movement. The High Court held that a passport was the property
of the Government who accordingly had the right to withdraw it at any time. The appellant appealed.
In allowing the appeal and ordering the release of the passport with costs, it was held that:
1.

Where the Constitution gives a right, and facts have been proved which prima facie show an
infringement, it was for the person alleged to have infringed that right to justify the
infringement and not for the person whose right had been infringed to exclude all
circumstances of justification.

2.

A narrow and literal construction of the constitutional provisions relating to human rights
would retard their realisation, enjoyment and protection and was unacceptable.

3.

For a right to be meaningful it must be interpreted so as to be effective. The right of freedom of

movement, particularly not to be refused entry to or exit from ones country, was recognised
by the African Charter and the Universal Declaration and was buttressed by pronouncements
from common law jurisdictions without express constitutional guarantees providing for the
freedom of exit (Kent v. Dulles 357 US 158 (1958); Satuant Singh v. Passport Officer (1967) 3
SCR 524 considered). Such a right would be empty without a concomitant right not to be
deprived of the document which made such movement possible.

4.

The citizen, therefore, had a legal right to a passport and the seizure constituted a violation of
the appellants right to freedom of movement. The passport was to be released to him
forthwith.

5.

The statement printed on the Nigerian passport that it remains the property of the
Government meant that the holder could not transfer, sell, or otherwise dispose of it. The
statement that it may be withdrawn at any time was contrary to the constitutionally
guaranteed right to freedom of movement and should be modified to reflect the true state of
the law.

Lawyers

For the Appellant: Tunde Fagbohunlu; C Obiagwu

For the Respondents: No appearance

Citations

[1994] 6 NWLR 475; [1996] 1 CHRLD 89