#EndBadGovernanceInNigeria: COURT DISMISSES SUIT SEEKING TO PREVENT CITIZENS FROM FURTHER PROTESTING

Read Time:1 Minute, 54 Second

The Federal High Court in Abuja, presided over by Justice Peter Lifu, on Monday dismissed an application seeking an interim injunction to stop protesters from continuing the #EndBadGovernance protest.

Aggrieved Nigerians who were frustrated with the economic hardship in the country in some parts of Nigeria trooped out from August 1 to 10, to protest the removal of fuel subsidies, bad governance, and rising hunger in the country.

Danladi Goje, Buky Abayomi, Adiza Abbo, and 13 other Nigerians had in an application dated August 12, sought the enforcement of their fundamental rights against the organisations who chaired the protests.

The applicants sued Take It Back Movement, Concerned Nigerians, Nigerians Against Hunger, Initiative For Change, Human Rights Co-advocacy Initiative, Nigerian Against Corruption Initiative, Citizens for Change Advocacy Initiative, Timely Intervention organisations, Active Citizens Group and Students For Change We Coalition, as 1st to 10th respondents respectively.

The applicants also sued Total Intervention, Refurbished Nigeria, Tomorrow Today, Our Future In Our Hands Initiative, Youths Against Tyranny, Save Nigeria Movement, Omoyele Sowore, and Social Democratic Party (SDP) as 11th to 19th respondents.

Other respondents in the matter are the attorney general of the federation and security agencies.

Justice Lifu in a ruling however dismissed the ex-parte application for lacking in merit.

The trial judge held that the #EndBadGovernance protest ended last week, noting that there was no evidence presented before the court showing that the protesters would reconvene later.

The judge said the applicants’ lawyer cannot rush his notice ex parte without providing the required affidavit to support the requests for an interim injunction and substituted service.

JUST IN: TINUBU TO DEPART ABUJA WEDNESDAY FOR THREE-DAY VISIT TO EQUATORIAL GUINEA

He later adjourned the hearing on the motion on notice to August 29.

In the court documents, Tsembelee Sorkaa, the applicants’ lawyer, had claimed that his client’s rights to life, personal liberty, private and family life, and economic activities would be further breached if the 1st to 19th respondents continued the protest.

Sorkaa urged the court to restrain the 1st to 19th respondents from continuing with the protest pending the determination of his motion on notice.

The lawyer also appealed to the court to enforce the restraining order if it is granted.