The Court of Appeal sitting in Kaduna has issued a stern warning to the Nigeria Customs Service (NCS) against seizing foreign rice in open markets, asserting that such actions are outside the scope of its powers.
Delivering its judgment on Wednesday, the court ruled on an appeal filed by the Customs Service against a Federal High Court decision that had acquitted Suleiman Mohammed of charges related to the importation of foreign goods.
In a unanimous verdict delivered by Justice Ntong Ntong, the appellate court ordered the release of 613 bags of foreign rice, 80 bags of millet valued at approximately N200 million, and a truck seized from Mohammed. The court maintained that the Kaduna-Zaria Expressway, where the goods were intercepted, is not a land border and therefore not within the jurisdiction of the customs service for such operations.
Justice Ntong emphasized:
“The Nigeria Customs Service has no right to patrol highways, such as the Kaduna-Zaria Expressway, for the sole purpose of arresting individuals or confiscating foreign rice. The law restricts such enforcement to land borders.”
The court clarified that Mohammed, a 37-year-old businessman, was merely a purchaser of rice and millet at Gusau Central Market in Zamfara State and not an importer. It criticized Customs for failing to apprehend actual importers, likening the situation to an Annang idiom: “A fowl pursues the de-featherer rather than its killer.”
The court further rebuked the customs officials for conducting what it described as “shoddy investigations from the comfort of their office.” It directed the Nigeria Customs Service to return the confiscated goods and truck to Mohammed. In cases where the items cannot be returned, the service was ordered to pay him an amount equivalent to their current market value.
Justice Ntong stressed that the Nigeria Customs Service must comply with the orders immediately, adding that contraband enforcement should focus on land borders rather than highways and markets.
The appeal by the Customs Service was dismissed, affirming the lower court’s decision.
Be the first to comment