A Lagos woman, Mrs Faith Austin Akpomreta, has raised the alarm over the alleged arrest of her husband, Austin Akpomreta, by police operatives, expressing fears for his safety after losing contact with him.

Austin, a legal adviser to the GTHomes Estate Residents Association in Lekki, was allegedly arrested on Wednesday by operatives of the Police Monitoring Unit from Abuja and taken to Elemoro Police Station before being moved to the airport, where his wife believes he was flown to Abuja.

Recounting the incident, she said her husband left home for work in the morning but called shortly after she had taken their children to school to report that he was in a frightening situation.

“They laid an ambush for him outside the estate gate. They double-crossed him with a tricycle and forcibly took him to Elemoro Police Station along the Lagos-Epe Expressway,” she said.

Akpomreta added that the last information she received indicated that her husband was at the airport with the operatives.

“I have not been able to reach him since then. I am scared. My husband has not committed any crime, and he should be freed,” she said, appealing for intervention to protect his fundamental rights.

The alleged arrest occurred while a fundamental rights enforcement suit involving Austin and four other applicants was pending before the Federal High Court, Lagos Division, Ikoyi.

The suit, marked FHC/LAG/FR/2026, names the Police Service Commission, Inspector-General of Police, Deputy Inspector-General of Police in charge of the Force Intelligence Department, CSP Moses Paul and Mrs Temitope Adelu-Davis as respondents. The other applicants are Bamidele Odugbesan, Dr Ajibola Asolo, Ms Mariatu Sule and Uche Adikpe.

On September 7, 2026, Justice F. N. Ogazi directed the respondents to maintain the status quo on the subject of the complaint and stay all actions pending the hearing and determination of their affidavit to show cause.

The judge also ordered the applicants to serve the court processes within three days and directed the respondents to explain within seven days of receiving them why the reliefs sought should not be granted.

The case was ordered to proceed on an accelerated basis.

The applicants had sought interim injunctions restraining the respondents from inviting, arresting, detaining, interrogating or taking other specified actions against them.

However, the court did not expressly grant those specific injunctions in the order described. Instead, it directed the parties to maintain the status quo while the respondents explained why the requested reliefs should not be granted.

Whether the alleged arrest breached that directive would depend on the full wording of the order and the circumstances surrounding the arrest.

There was no immediate response from the police to the allegation. (The Guardian)