Ahead of today’s nationwide protest, a Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court in Abuja has barred protesters from marching on the streets of the nation’s capital.
The ruling came following an ex-parte application brought before the High by FCT Minister, Nyesom Wike.
In his ruling, Justice Sylvanus Chinedu Oriji, restricted participants in the proposed #EndBadGovernance protest from marching on streets in Abuja.
Recall that the organizers of protest had asked for permission to use the Eagle Square for the protest. However, the FCT Minister, Wike asked them to follow due process.
But not satisfied with the answer from the Minister, the organizers vowed to make use of the facility. This, they said is with or without approval from the authorities.
Therefore, to forestall the break down of law and order in the FCT, the Minister approached the court.
In his ruling, the judge. Oriji held that the protest should hold at the MKO Abiola Stadium, also known as the National Stadium.
The judge ruled that, “Leave is granted to the claimant/applicant (FCT Minister) to serve the originating processes (writ of summons) and all subsequent processes in this suit on the defendants/respondents by substituted means to wit: through newspaper publications and print media.
“The 1st Defendants/Respondents, while embarking on the planned protest from 1/8/2024 to 10/8/2024 in exercise of their constitutional rights are to use the Moshood Abiola Stadium in the Federal Capital Territory Abuja only. And are restrained by an order of interim injunction from gathering in any other place pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.”
The order was made in an ex parte application brought by Ogwu James Onoja (SAN) against Omoyele Sowore, Damilare Adenola for the “Take It Back Movement”, Adama Ukpabi, Tosin Harsogba for “Active Citizens Group”, Persons Unknown. The Inspector General of Police, Commissioner of Police, FCT, Director General of the Department of State Security Services, Director General of the Nigerian Security and Civil Defence Corps, Chief of Army Staff, Chief of Air Staff, and Chief of Naval Staff as respondents and defendants.
The FCT Minister had sought an order of interim injunction restraining the five leaders of the protesting groups from gathering or parading themselves along any roadway, streets, offices and public premises within the FCT between August 1 to August 10. Or any other day thereafter, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.
The Minister also applied for another order of interim injunction mandating the security agencies to prevent the protesting leaders from gathering or parading themselves along any roadway, streets, offices or public premises within the FCT between August 1 and 10, pending the hearing of his motion on notice.
Recall that the FCT Minister had stated that the Federal Government was not averse to the protest. He, however, claimed that intelligence and security reports reaching him indicated that some elements within the leadership of the protesters intend to capitalize on the planned protest to cause havoc. And irreparable damages to public facilities and blocking of roadways to prevent movement of persons and vehicles and disturb public peace.
He claimed that when he contacted the security agencies to ensure that the planned protest did not degenerate into criminality and disturbance of public peace and order, he was told that they are not well equipped to manage any crisis that may arise from the planned protest at a short notice. Hence they advised him that prevention is better than cure.
The judge however, said granting the prayer seeking to restrain the protesters from parading themselves along any road would not amount to denying their constitutional rights to protest if granted prayed.
The judge added, “The point must, however, be made that in the exercise of the right to protest, every citizen has an obligation to ensure that properties of other citizens and of the government and other public facilities are not destroyed.
“In the affidavit in support of the motion, the claimant/applicant has stated facts to the effect that the proposed strike by the group called Take It Back is likely to lead to destruction of public facilities and prevent movement of persons and vehicles, in addition to disturbance of public peace and order.”
The judge ordered the service of the notice of hearing on the respondents and defendants by substituted means and fixed August 13 for the hearing of the matter.
source: Daily Trust
Follow us for more news on our WhatsApp News Channels @
https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaC505jB4hdZ5Yx9g82U
