The Federal High Court in Calabar has dismissed a fundamental human rights enforcement suit filed against the Pharmacy Council of Nigeria (PCN) and two other respondents over alleged harassment and intimidation. Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu delivered the ruling on Thursday, May 14, 2026.
Details of the Suit
The suit, marked FHC/CA/FHR/39/2025, named the Pharmacy Council of Nigeria, the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) Headquarters in Abuja, and the NSCDC Cross River State Command as respondents. The applicants, Ezea Kamchukwube and others, had accused the respondents of violating their fundamental rights during enforcement actions linked to investigations into alleged illegal pharmacy practice.
They specifically alleged harassment and intimidation during operations concerning the handling of regulated pharmaceutical products. However, in her ruling, Justice Ojukwu held that the applicants failed to establish any breach of their fundamental rights and accordingly dismissed the suit in its entirety.
Reactions to the Judgment
Counsel to the defendants and Legal Officer of the Pharmacy Council of Nigeria, Mfena Gar, described the judgment as a victory for the respondents. She stated that the applicants are defendants in a related criminal case arising from alleged illegal pharmaceutical operations. According to her, they were not registered pharmacists but were allegedly operating two illegal pharmacies in Calabar stocked with prescription medicines without authorisation. She added that the PCN sealed the premises, effected arrests, and commenced prosecution against one of the suspects as part of its regulatory mandate.
Deputy Director of the Federal Ministry of Justice, Aminu Alilu, also described the ruling as a victory for due process, noting that the applicants could not substantiate claims of intimidation or unlawful treatment. He explained that the civil suit stemmed from investigations that led to separate criminal proceedings instituted against the defendants over alleged illegal pharmaceutical activities. According to him, the prosecution maintained that the defendants operated without proper registration and dealt in regulated drugs capable of posing serious public health risks. He further noted that the prosecution had concluded its case and presented evidence, leaving the court to determine whether the charges were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
