Take-It-Back, Sowore, Others File Motion To Set Aside FCT Minister, Wike’s Suit Restricting #EndBadGovernance Protests In Abuja
The motion against the suit filed by Wike brought before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory has Omoyele Sowore, Damilare Adenola (for TIB movement), Adama Ukpabi and Tosin Harsogba (for Active Citizens Group) as the 1st to 4th defendants.
Inibehe Effiong Chambers, the lawyer firm representing the Take-It-Back movement and human rights activist, Omoyele Sowore, has filed a motion on notice to set aside the suit filed and the prayers sought by the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, concerning the #EndBadGovernance protests in the country’s capital.
The motion against the suit filed by Wike brought before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory has Omoyele Sowore, Damilare Adenola (for TIB movement), Adama Ukpabi and Tosin Harsogba (for Active Citizens Group) as the 1st to 4th defendants.
On August 22, Justice Sylvanus Orji of a Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court ordered service of court documents filed against Omoyele Sowore and the three others on their lawyer.
The court documents are in respect of the suit filed by Wike against the recent #EndBadGovernance and hunger protests.
Justice Orji had on August 13 extended his order restricting the #EndBadGovernance and hunger protesters to the Moshood Abiola Stadium, Abuja.
The extension was sequel to the absence of the defendants in court at the last proceedings. Justice Orji had adjourned till September 4, for the hearing of the plaintiff’s motion on notice.
The court on July 31 confined the protesters to the National Stadium, saying it was to prevent a “breakdown of law and order”, as well as the destruction of lives and property in the nation’s capital during the protests.
Meanwhile, in the motion filed by the lawyers for the activists and the TIB, they prayed the court “TO SET ASIDE ITS INTERIM ORDERS.”
The court documents obtained by SaharaReporters on Friday seeks: “AN ORDER setting aside the interim orders of injunction made on the 31st day of July, 2024 and the further order made on the 13th day of August, 2024 extending the said interim orders of injunction made by this Honourable Court (Coram: HON. JUSTICE SYLVANUS CHINEDU ORJI) in Suit No: FCT/HC/CV/3472/2024 between HONOURABLE MINISTER OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY V. OMOYELE SOWORE &1 ORS, same having been made without jurisdiction.
“AND FOR SUCH FURTHER ORDER OR ORDERS as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances. TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the grounds upon which this application is brought are as follows:
“The interim injunctive orders made in favour of the Claimant by this Honourable Court (Coram: HON. JUSTICE SYLVANUS CHINEDU ORJI) on the 31st day of July 2024, and the renewal granted on the 13th day of August, 2024 were made without jurisdiction and in violation of the Applicants’ fundamental rights. The interim order(s) is a nullity for many reasons and is liable to be set aside.
“The Writ of Summons in this suit, along with the Motion Ex-Parte, the Motion on Notice, and all other processes in this suit were filed by the Claimant on the 31 day of July, 2024.
“On the said 31st day of July, 2024 when this matter was instituted, and when it also came up before this Honourable Court for hearing, the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja had proceeded on its 2024 Annual Vacation in line with the directions of the Honourable Chief Judge of the Federal Capital Territory as mandated by law.
“By the mandatory provisions of Order 52 Rule 5 of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja (Civil Procedure) Rules 2018, the Court may hear urgent matters during the Annual Vacation subject to an application which shall be made by motion ex-parte. The Claimant herein did not make an application ex-parte and no leave or order was granted by this Honourable Court to allow the hearing of this matter during the Annual Vacation as stipulated by law. Thus, this matter did not come before the Vacation Court by due process of law.
“The Claimant in its Motion Ex-parte dated the 30th day of July, 2024 and filed on the 31st day of July, 2024 did not pray for an order of interim injunction to restrain the Defendants or the protesting Applicants to the Moshood Abiola Stadium in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja as ordered by this Honourable Court on the 315 day of July, 2024.
“This Honourable Court being a superior court of record, and not being a Father Christmas, is bound by its own records and the processes before it, including the specific reliefs sought by parties. The Court lacks the vires to grant an order not specifically sought. The Court also lacks the jurisdiction to amend the reliefs sought by the Claimant or to grant reliefs not specifically sought by the Claimant.
“The Applicants are affected by the ex-parte orders made by this Honourable Court on the 31st day of July, 2024 and renewed on the 13th day of August, 2024 and are legally entitled to have the orders set aside. This application is necessary in order to uphold the sanctity of the constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), preserve the integrity of the judicial system and halt Claimant’s pernicious use of the Court as a means to turn Nigeria into a full blown dictatorship where the constitutional rights of citizens are only exercisable at the mercy of the Claimant and other repressive agencies or authorities.”
Furthermore, the court document reads, “The reliefs sought in the motion ex-parte were not grantable in law. The said reliefs are/were speculative and based on frivolous, legally inadmissible and unproven grounds and averments.
“This Honourable Court has inherent jurisdiction and power to set aside its order (a) where it was made without jurisdiction, (b) where it is a nullity, (where it is unconstitutional (d) where the order offends the rules of natural justice.
“The Applicants are affected by the ex-parte orders made by this Honourable Court on the 31st day of July, 2024 and renewed on the 13th day of August, 2024 and are legally entitled to have the orders set aside.
“The granting of this application is necessary in order to uphold the sanctity of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), preserve the integrity of the judicial system and halt Claimant’s pernicious attempt to use the Court as a means to turn Nigeria into a full blown dictatorship where the constitutional rights of citizens are only exercisable at the mercy of the Claimant and other repressive agencies or authorities.
“It is in the best interest of justice for the application to be granted.”
Furthermore, in the defendants’ statement of claim, they noted: “The Defendants are not in a position to admit or deny Paragraph 1 of the Statement of Claim but put the Claimant to the strictest proof of same.
“The Defendants deny Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Statement of Claim and put the Claimant to the strictest proof of same. The Defendants state that there is no law that makes or recognizes the Claimant as the Chief Security Officer of the Federal Capital Territory.
“The Defendants admit Paragraph 4 of the Statement of Claim only to the extent that the 1st and 2nd Defendants are members and among the leaders of TAKE IT BACK MOVEMENT and the 3rd and 4th Defendants are members and among the leaders of ACTIVE CITIZENS GROUP.
“The Defendants aver that Paragraph 5 of the Statement of Claim is misleading, as the 6th Defendant in this suit is the Inspector General of Police who is not an unknown person.
“However, if the Claimant intended to refer to PERSONS UNKNOWN, the Defendants aver that Paragraph 5 of the Statement of Claim is mere speculation and put the Claimant to the strictest proof of same.
“The Defendants aver that their decision to embark on a peaceful protest which they already intimated the Claimant about does not constitute a threat to the stability of the government or national security.
“The Defendants aver that it is the failure of the government to comply with the obligations to provide adequate security to peaceful protesters, respect and guarantee fundamental rights of citizens involved during protests that may trigger violence in most cases.
“The Defendants aver that the government is obliged to guarantee and facilitate the exercise of the rights of citizens at stake during protests and to implement measures and mechanisms to ensure that those rights are protected not hindered.
“The Defendants aver that it is the duty of the government to ensure that the Defendants exercise their right to peaceful protest, and that government also has a duty to eliminate any norm or practice that violates the rights of the Defendants and Nigerians to peaceful protest.”
Also, the Defendants state that to “demonstrate their good motives and intention, they wrote to the Honourable Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, and the Inspector General of Police notifying them about their intention to embark on the protest in order for there to be put ni place adequate legal mechanisms to guarantee a peaceful protest where law and order wil be maintained”.
They added that they are “mindful of the need for public safety and ti was on that basis they wrote to the relevant government authorities to ensure law and order are maintained and preserved during the protest”.
“The Defendants aver that the Claimant is not entitled to the reliefs sought in this suit, and humbly urge this Honourable Court to dismiss the Claimant’s claims in their entirety with substantial cost, as they are frivolous and attention seeking, and actuated by a dictator’s desire to subvert the Constitution of Nigeria and impose a regime of fear, terror and wanton disregard for the fundamental rights of the Defendants and other Nigerians to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly,” the activists stated.
In a notice of preliminary objection, the defendants seek an “order awarding substantial punitive cost personally against the counsel to the claimant/respondent for want of jurisdiction as the suit is speculative, discloses no reasonable cause of action against the defendant/applicant for filing this suit knowing same to be frivolous, unconstitutional and an abuse of court process”.
They also seek an order “awarding substantial cost against the claimant/respondent in favour of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants/applicants”.
