A woman, Doris Ojuederie, has asked the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, to restrain the Nigeria Police Force from further arresting, detaining, harassing or intimidating her over a dispute arising from her planned marriage.
Ojuederie and Ezenwaogene filed a fundamental rights enforcement suit against the Inspector-General of Police, the Nigeria Police Force, the Commissioner of Police, FCT Command, the Police Service Commission, the DPO, Galadimawa Police Station, and three officers attached to the National Cybercrime Centre, NPF-NCCC.
Also joined as a respondent is Mrs Fibiawari Jonathan, whom Ojuederie accused of allegedly using the police to harass her over the relationship.
In a motion ex-parte filed through their counsel, Terkaa J. Aondo, SAN, the applicants are seeking interim orders restraining the police from arresting, detaining, threatening, intimidating or otherwise interfering with their personal liberty, freedom of movement and private life pending the determination of the substantive suit.
The applicants are also asking the court to restrain Fibiawari from procuring or instigating their arrest or detention.
In her affidavit, Ojuederie alleged that police officers had threatened to confiscate her international passport and impose an international travel ban on her.
She said the alleged threats followed her arrest and detention on August 6, 2026, after which she was released on bail.
According to her, the police subsequently continued to invite her and allegedly threaten her with another arrest, seizure of her mobile phone and international passport, as well as restrictions on her international movement.
She said: “Since I left the station on the 6th of August, 2026, the Police through the 8th and 9th Respondents have been calling me persistently threatening to arrest, seize my phones, International Passport and detain me.”
Ojuederie alleged that the dispute was substantially connected to her proposed marriage to Ezenwaogene.
She said she had introduced Fibiawari to her fiancé but later discovered that Fibiawari had allegedly developed an interest in him.
She further claimed that she reported the matter to Fibiawari’s husband after allegedly discovering an affair between them.
The applicant alleged that on July 10, armed police officers arrived at her residence in Jabi, Abuja, accompanied by Fibiawari, and attempted to gain access to her apartment.
She said she was subsequently arrested at her residence on August 6 and taken to the National Cybercrime Centre, NPF-NCCC, in Abuja.
According to her, her mobile phones were seized for forensic examination, while police officers allegedly pressured her to write a statement without her lawyer being present.
She further alleged that the officers compelled her to apologise to Fibiawari.
Ojuederie stated that the repeated police actions had left her “in constant fear” of another arrest and affected her ability to move freely and live peacefully in her residence.
She also claimed that her fiancé had separately been invited and harassed by the police over the matter.
In their written address, the applicants’ counsel argued that their fundamental rights under Sections 34, 35, 41 and 46 of the 1999 Constitution were under threat.
Counsel submitted that an interim injunction was necessary to preserve the status quo, arguing that “the purpose of an interim injunction is to maintain the status quo” and prevent the subject matter of the suit from being rendered nugatory.
The applicants maintained that the dispute was essentially civil and matrimonial in nature and urged the court to protect them from further arrest, detention, passport seizure and restrictions on their freedom of movement.
They, however, acknowledged that the proposed injunction would not prevent the police from investigating “any genuine criminal offence disclosed by credible evidence” or proceeding in accordance with due process of law.
They therefore urged the court to grant the interim orders pending the determination of the substantive application.
When the matter came up on Wednesday, August 25, 2026, the court directed the applicants to put the respondents on notice and adjourned the matter until September 8, 2026, for hearing.
