A Federal High Court in Abuja has rejected an ex-parte motion seeking to, among others, restrain President Muhammadu Buhari, Director-General of the Department of State Services (DSS) and others from taking further actions against some Judges recently arrested by the DSS.
Justice Gabriel Kolawole, in a bench ruling on Friday, October 28, 2016, refused to grant ex-parte a request for an order restraining the defendants from re-arresting or taking any “untoward action” against five of the eight Judges’ whose houses were recently raided by DSS’ operatives.
The defendants are President Buhari, Director-General of DSS (Lawal Daura); the DSS; the Attorney-General of the Federation (Abubakar Malami), the Inspector-General of Police and the National Judicial Council (NJC).
The motion was filed by a lawyer, Olukoya Ogungbeje. He specifically sought an order of interim injunction restraining “the respondents, their agents, servants, privies, men, officers or anybody deriving authority from them by whatever name called from further arresting, intimidating, arresting, inviting, seizing or taking any untoward action against the arrested and affected honourable Judges and judicial officers pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.”
He explained, in a supporting affidavit, that his motion was informed by his apprehension that the Judges could be charged in court before the conclusion of the substantive suit he filed, challenging the propriety of the DSS’ invasion of the Judges’ houses, their arrest and detention.
Justice Kolawole, after listening to Ogungbeje’s lawyer, Ayo Ogundele, argued the motion, said he must first resolve a number of issues, particularly the plaintiff’s locus standi, before making a pronouncement on the prayer as contained in the motion.
The Judge directed that the plaintiff’s motion on notice, seeking similar prayer, be served on the respondents.
Justice Kolawole ordered President Buhari, Lawal Daura; the DSS; the A-GF and IGP to appear in court on the next adjourned date (November 15, 2016) to show cause why the interim restraining order sought by the plaintiff should not be granted.
The Judge ordered that the plaintiff’s motion ex-parte and on notice be served on the respondents and they shall be entitled to respond within seven days of being served.
Ogungbeje had on October 14, 2016 filed the substantive suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/809/16, arguing that the arrest of the Judges without recourse to the NJC was unlawful and amounted to humiliating them.
Ogungbeje, who sued on behalf of five of the Judges, who are still in service, said the DSS operations violated the rights of Judges under sections 33, 34, 35, 36, and 41 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
The Judges are Sylvester Ngwuta, John Iyang Okoro, Adeniyi Ademola, Muazu Pindiga and Nnamdi Dimgba.
The plaintif is seeking 10 reliefs including N50bn against the defendants as “general and exemplary damages” and N2m as cost of the suit.
Ogungbeje equally wants an order compelling the DSS to return to the Judges the sums of money recovered from them.
He also seeks perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from arresting, inviting, intimidating, or harassing the Judges with respect to the case.
The plaintiff is among others contending that the raid on the residences of the Judges and their arrest was unconstitutional.
He argued that the arrest of the Judges did not follow the law.
The plaintiff, in a supporting affidavit, stated that: “the 1st (President Buhari), 2nd (DG of DSS), 3rd (DSS), 4th (AGF), and 5th (IGP) respondents have no petition against the affected to the 6th respondent (NJC).
“The 6th respondent is the only body empowered by the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to discipline Judges and judicial officers in Nigeria.
“The judiciary is an independent arm of government in Nigeria and separate from the executive and the legislature.
“This illegal and unconstitutional action by the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents have been roundly condemned by the Nigerian Bar Association.
“The 2nd (DG of DSS), 3rd (DSS), and 5th (IGP) respondents carried out their action which brazenly infringed upon the rights of the affected five Judges without lawful excuse or recourse to the 6th respondent.
“The 2nd, 3rd and 4th (AGF) respondents have no right under the law and and Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to discipline, infringe upon the rights of the affected Judges.
“Due process of law has not been followed in the arrest, humiliation harassment and detention of the affected Judges by the armed agents and officers of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents
“The affected Judges have not committed any crime or wrong known to law to warrant their arrest, harassment, humiliation and detention, the forceful invasion and sieging of their residential houses and the forceful seizure and confiscation of their monies and properties without any court order.
“Due process of law were not followed and carried out by the 2nd, 3rd and 5th respondents before the arrest, humiliation, harassment, embarrassment, hounding, detention and forceful, seizure and confiscation of their monies.
“The officials and agents of the 2nd, 3rd and 5th respondents have threatened and vowed to continue to use to use unconstitutional means to arrest, humiliate, harass, pillory, hound, intimidate, and detain Hon. Judges and judicial officers of superior courts in Nigeria without recourse to the 6th respondent as the constitutionally recognised body to discipline erring Judges.”
No comments:
Post a Comment