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 old to the Excessive Court of the Federal Capital Territory has Omoyele Sowore, Damilare Adenola (for TIB movement), Adama Ukpabi and Tosin Harsogba (for Appealing Voters Team) because the first to 4th defendants.

Inibehe Effiong Chambers, the licensed skilled firm representing the Clutch-It-Motivate movement and human rights activist, Omoyele Sowore, has filed a motion on gaze to space apart the suit filed and the prayers sought by the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, pertaining to the #EndBadGovernance protests in the country’s capital.

The motion against the suit filed by Wike brought old to the Excessive Court of the Federal Capital Territory has Omoyele Sowore, Damilare Adenola (for TIB movement), Adama Ukpabi and Tosin Harsogba (for Appealing Voters Team) because the first to 4th defendants.

On August 22, Justice Sylvanus Orji of a Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Excessive Court ordered service of court docket paperwork filed against Omoyele Sowore and the three others on their licensed skilled.

The court docket paperwork are in admire of the suit filed by Wike against the contemporary #EndBadGovernance and starvation protests.

Justice Orji had on August 13 prolonged his say restricting the #EndBadGovernance and starvation protesters to the Moshood Abiola Stadium, Abuja.

The extension used to be sequel to the absence of the defendants in court docket on the closing complaints. Justice Orji had adjourned till September 4, for the hearing of the plaintiff’s motion on gaze.

The court docket on July 31 confined the protesters to the National Stadium, announcing it used to be to forestall a “breakdown of regulation and say”, as well to the destruction of lives and property in the nation’s capital at some stage in the protests. 

In the intervening time, in the motion filed by the attorneys for the activists and the TIB, they prayed the court docket “TO SET ASIDE ITS INTERIM ORDERS.”

The court docket paperwork obtained by SaharaReporters on Friday seeks: “AN ORDER atmosphere apart the intervening time orders of injunction made on the 31st day of July, 2024 and the additional say made on the thirteenth day of August, 2024 extending the acknowledged intervening time orders of injunction made by this Honourable Court (Coram: HON. JUSTICE SYLVANUS CHINEDU ORJI) in Swimsuit No: FCT/HC/CV/3472/2024 between HONOURABLE MINISTER OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY V. OMOYELE SOWORE &1 ORS, identical having been made without jurisdiction.

“AND FOR SUCH FURTHER ORDER OR ORDERS as this Honourable Court would possibly per chance perhaps judge fit to construct in the circumstances. TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the grounds upon which this utility is brought are as follows:

“The intervening time 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 thirteenth day of August, 2024 had been made without jurisdiction and in violation of the Applicants’ basic rights. The intervening time say(s) is a nullity for many causes and is susceptible to be space apart. 

“The Writ of Summons in this suit, along with the Motion Ex-Parte, the Motion on Behold, and all diversified processes in this suit had been filed by the Claimant on the 31 day of July, 2024.

“On the acknowledged 31st day of July, 2024 when this matter used to be instituted, and when it also came up old to this Honourable Court for hearing, the Excessive Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja had proceeded on its 2024 Annual Race in accordance with the directions of the Honourable Chief Resolve of the Federal Capital Territory as mandated by regulation.

“By the basic provisions of Repeat 52 Rule 5 of the Excessive Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja (Civil Map) Guidelines 2018, the Court would possibly per chance perhaps hear pressing issues at some stage in the Annual Race enviornment to an utility which would possibly per chance be made by motion ex-parte. The Claimant herein did now not construct an utility ex-parte and no leave or say used to be granted by this Honourable Court to allow the hearing of this matter at some stage in the Annual Race as stipulated by regulation. Thus, this matter did now not approach old to the Race Court by due job of regulation.

“The Claimant in its Motion Ex-parte dated the thirtieth day of July, 2024 and filed on the 31st day of July, 2024 did now not pray for an say of intervening time 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 docket of story, and now not being a Father Christmas, is certain by its bear records and the processes old to it, in conjunction with the explicit reliefs sought by events. The Court lacks the vires to grant an say now not specifically sought. The Court also lacks the jurisdiction to amend the reliefs sought by the Claimant or to grant reliefs now not specifically sought by the Claimant.

“The Applicants are littered with the ex-parte orders made by this Honourable Court on the 31st day of July, 2024 and renewed on the thirteenth day of August, 2024 and are legally entitled to maintain the orders space apart. This utility is basic in say in confidence to uphold the sanctity of the structure of the federal republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), merit the integrity of the judicial system and cease Claimant’s pernicious exercise of the Court so that you just would possibly per chance flip Nigeria into a chubby blown dictatorship where the constitutional rights of voters are handiest exercisable on the mercy of the Claimant and diversified repressive businesses or authorities.”

Moreover, the court docket doc reads, “The reliefs sought in the motion ex-parte had been now not grantable in regulation. The acknowledged reliefs are/had been speculative and in step with frivolous, legally inadmissible and unproven grounds and averments.

“This Honourable Court has inherent jurisdiction and energy to space apart its say (a) where it used to be made without jurisdiction, (b) where it’s far a nullity, (where it’s far unconstitutional (d) where the say offends the principles of pure justice.

“The Applicants are littered with the ex-parte orders made by this Honourable Court on the 31st day of July, 2024 and renewed on the thirteenth day of August, 2024 and are legally entitled to maintain the orders space apart.

“The granting of this utility is basic in say in confidence to uphold the sanctity of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), merit the integrity of the judicial system and cease Claimant’s pernicious are trying and exercise the Court so that you just would possibly per chance flip Nigeria into a chubby blown dictatorship where the constitutional rights of voters are handiest exercisable on the mercy of the Claimant and diversified repressive businesses or authorities.

“It is in the accurate ardour of justice for the utility to be granted.”

Moreover, in the defendants’ reveal of relate, they eminent: “The Defendants are now not in a space to admit or say Paragraph 1 of the Assertion of Say however put the Claimant to the strictest proof of identical.

“The Defendants say Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Assertion of Say and put the Claimant to the strictest proof of identical. The Defendants affirm that there is now not a regulation that makes or acknowledges the Claimant because the Chief Safety Officer of the Federal Capital Territory.

“The Defendants admit Paragraph 4 of the Assertion of Say handiest to the extent that the first and 2nd Defendants are contributors and among the many leaders of TAKE IT BACK MOVEMENT and the Third and 4th Defendants are contributors and among the many leaders of ACTIVE CITIZENS GROUP.

“The Defendants aver that Paragraph 5 of the Assertion of Say is deceptive, because the sixth Defendant in this suit is the Inspector Primary of Police who’s now not an unknown particular person. 

“Nonetheless, if the Claimant intended to confer with PERSONS UNKNOWN, the Defendants aver that Paragraph 5 of the Assertion of Say is mere speculation and put the Claimant to the strictest proof of identical.

“The Defendants aver that their resolution to embark on a still voice which they already intimated the Claimant about does now not constitute a threat to the soundness of the govtor national security. 

“The Defendants aver that it’s the failure of the govtto conform with the obligations to construct ample security to still protesters, admire and guarantee basic rights of voters moving at some stage in protests that will trigger violence in most circumstances.

“The Defendants aver that the govtis obliged to make sure and facilitate the exercise of the rights of voters at stake at some stage in protests and to implement measures and mechanisms to be definite that that these rights are safe now not hindered.

“The Defendants aver that it’s the duty of the govtto be definite that that the Defendants exercise their correct to still voice, and that govt also has an duty to assign away with any norm or note that violates the rights of the Defendants and Nigerians to still voice.”

Also, the Defendants affirm that to “expose their correct motives and blueprint, they wrote to the Honourable Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, and the Inspector Primary of Police notifying them about their blueprint to embark on the voice in say for there to be put ni space ample good mechanisms to make sure a still voice where regulation and say wil be maintained”.

They added that they’re “mindful of the need for public security and ti used to be on that basis they wrote to the linked govt authorities to be definite that regulation and say are maintained and preserved at some stage in the voice”.

“The Defendants aver that the Claimant is now not entitled to the reliefs sought in this suit, and humbly hasten this Honourable Court to push apart the Claimant’s claims in their entirety with enormous cost, as they’re frivolous and consideration making an strive to safe, and actuated by a dictator’s wish to subvert the Constitution of Nigeria and impose a regime of difficulty, fear and wanton push apart for the basic rights of the Defendants and diversified Nigerians to freedom of expression and still meeting,” the activists acknowledged.

In a gaze of preliminary objection, the defendants learn an “say awarding enormous punitive cost in my belief against the counsel to the claimant/respondent for need of jurisdiction because the suit is speculative, discloses no practical trigger of action against the defendant/applicant for submitting this suit piquant comparable to be frivolous, unconstitutional and an abuse of court docket job”.

They also learn an say “awarding enormous cost against the claimant/respondent in favour of the first, 2nd, Third and 4th defendants/applicants”.