Effiong contended that the order infringes on the EndBadGovernance protesters’ rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and association, as guaranteed by Sections 39 and 40 of the Nigerian Constitution.
Abuja, Nigeria – Activists and legal representatives for the #EndBadGovernance protesters have called on the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) to vacate an ex-parte order restricting their demonstrations to the Moshood Abiola National Stadium in Abuja.
The order, initially issued by Justice Sylvanus Oriji on July 31, was intended to prevent a breakdown of law and order, as well as potential harm to lives and property in the nation’s capital during the protests. The court extended the order on August 13.
However, the protesters, represented by Omoyele Sowore, Damilare Adenola, Adama Ukpabi of the TakeitBack Movement, and Tosin Harsogba of the Active Citizen Group, have challenged the legality of the order. Their counsel, Inibehe Effiong, argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to issue the order, which he claims violates the protesters’ fundamental rights.
Effiong asserted that the ex-parte order is unconstitutional, labeling it a nullity that should be set aside. He contended that the order infringes on the EndBadGovernance protesters‘ rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and association, as guaranteed by Sections 39 and 40 of the Nigerian Constitution.
“The duty of the Nigeria Police Force, the Nigerian Security and Civil Defence Corps, and other law enforcement agencies to provide adequate security for the protesters is enshrined in the law,” Effiong argued, referencing Section 83 (4) of the Nigeria Police Act 2020, Section 91 (3) of the Electoral Act 2022, and other enabling laws. He further emphasized that this duty is not geographically restricted and cannot be limited to the Moshood Abiola Stadium, as the court had ordered.
Effiong also pointed out procedural errors in the case. He argued that the court was on its 2024 Annual Vacation when the order was made, and that no proper application was filed to hear the matter during the vacation period, as required by the High Court’s Civil Procedure Rules. Additionally, he noted that the claimant did not specifically request the interim injunction that the court granted, which he argued is beyond the court’s powers.
“The court is not empowered to grant reliefs that were not specifically sought by the claimant,” Effiong stated, urging the court to vacate the order.
Join our Channel...