2 weeks ago
3
BY ANDREW OROLUA
Forty Nine youths who were remanded for a period of 60 days in custody by Justice Emeka Nwite of Federal High Court Abuja for participating in EndBadGovernance protest have asked the court to set aside the order or vacate the ex parte order.
Alternatively, to they asked the court release them on bail on liberal terms pending the completion of police investigation if any.
The youths were remanded in prison custody on 22nd of August 2024 via an ex parte order by the judge in a suit marked Suit No: SUIT NO: FHC/ABJ/CS/1223/2024 between IGP V. Comrade Opaluwa Eleojo & 48 Ors.
Their lawyers, Femi Falana SAN, three other Senior Advocates of Nigeria and 20 other lawyers filed the application on 26 August, 2024 seeking their release.
In the application brought pursuant to Sections 6 (6) (B), 35 and 36(4) (6) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended, Section 293 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court, the counsels said that the said remand order breached the fundamental human rights provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
READ ALSO: Five golds among 10 GB medals on sensational Saturday
The detention of the respondents/applicants for initial period beyond 48 hours before the grant of the ex-parte order was illegal by virtue of Section 35 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the counsels added.
Furthermore, the counsels argues: “That the judge acted without jurisdiction when his lordship made an order, “committing the defendants to correctional centre pursuant to Section 299 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015”
“Pursuant to Section 293 (1) ACJA 2015, only a magistrate court that has no jurisdiction to try an offender that was brought within a reasonable time before (can remand a suspect pursuant to Section 299 of ACJA, 2015).
“That the order ex-parte brought pursuant to Section 66 (1) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2022, inter alia on which the remand order was granted was obtained by the complainant/respondent to legalise an illegal detention by the complainant/respondent.
“Particularly, as the Respondent/Applicant had also volunteered statement to the Complainant/Respondent.
“At the time of the hearing of the motion ex-parte, the respondent/applicant was in custody of the applicant/respondent at Abuja, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court and not produced before the court.
“The motion ex-parte was predicated on suppression and misrepresentation of material facts.
“The motion ex-parte constitutes a gross abuse of the process of the Court.
“The Complainant/Respondent motion ex-parte did not disclose any fact capable of linking the Respondents /Applicants to any terrorism activity.
“That in the same vein the motion filed 21st August, 2024 did not in the supporting Affidavit (deposed to by Gregory Woje) allude to facts linking the Respondents/Applicants to any terrorism activity or any of the offences alleged in passing.
“The Applicants detention has exceeded the maximum period a court of law can allow the Respondents to detain the Applicants in accordance with the provisions of Section 35 (4) (a) of the Constitution of Nigeria (as amended) which only empowered the Complainant/Respondent to detain the Applicants for a maximum period of two months from the date of their arrest.
“That the Order made on 22nd August, 2024 was based on a wrong presumption and mistake that the complaint against the respondents therein relates to terrorism or treasonable felony.
That by virtue of Section 293 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, an application for the remand of any suspect is to be made before a Magistrate Court.
“By virtue of the actions of the Complainant/Respondent, the Respondents/Applicants right to life, dignity of human person, health and freedom of movement are under threat as same is currently being violated by the Respondent without any justification known to law.
In an affidavit in support of application deposed to Paul Ochayi, the applicants said that as at the time the motion ex-parte was filed, they were already in the custody of the complainant/Respondent at Abuja within the territorial jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.
“That the Application ex-parte for their detention did not disclose their involvement in any terrorism or treasonable related activity as no evidence was presented to support such allegations before this court.
“That protest is a right and in fact the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Asiwaju Ahmed Bola Tinubu has led protests in the past without being harassed, detained or remanded. They attached a document in proof of the assertion marked EXHIBIT D.
“That the Minister of the FCT, Nyesom Wike and his associates have also led protests in Nigeria and they were neither harassed, arrested or remanded. They also attached and marked EXHIBIT E is a document in proof of the assertion.
“That most of the persons at the helms of governance in the country today are the biggest beneficiaries of dissents and protests and they were neither clamped down or, arrested or remanded.
“That it will serve the interest of justice if the order for the detention of the Respondents /Applicants is set aside.
“That the investigation of the Respondents/Applicants by Applicant/Respondent is not related to any terrorism or treasonable activity.
“That the complainant/Respondent misled this honourable into granting the ex-parte without jurisdiction as same was granted per incuriam.
“That the Complainant/Respondent seeking for a remand of this nature is duty bound to present before the Court of competent jurisdiction facts and credible evidence linking the Respondents/Applicants to having committed acts of terrorism or treason.
“That the court is bound to expound and never to expand its jurisdiction.
“That I know for a fact that the respondent/applicants were not produced before the court when the order of remand was granted.
“That the respondent/applicants were denied the right of representation by legal practitioners of their choice.
“And lastly, that this honourable court has the jurisdiction to set aside its own order made pursuant to an ex-parte application”.
English (US) ·