President
Muhammadu Buhari and the DG of the Department of State Service, have
been summoned by the he Abuja Division of the Federal High Court to show
cause why seven judges arrested between October 7 and 8 should be
prosecuted.
President Buhari
The Abuja Division of the Federal High Court, on Friday, ordered
President Muhammadu Buhari and the Director-General of the Department of
State Service, DSS, Mr. Lawal Daura, to appear on November 15 to show
cause why seven judges arrested between October 7 and 8 should be
prosecuted.
Others equally summoned to appear before the court were the
Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar
Malami, SAN, the Inspector-General of Police, Ibrahim Idris, and the
National Judicial Council, NJC.
They were all cited as Respondents in a legal action that was
instituted before the high court by a Lagos-based lawyer, Mr. Olukoya
Ogungbeje. Though President Buhari will not appear in person, he is
expected to brief a lawyer to represent him before the court on that
date.
The plaintiff had in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/809/16, applied for
an order of perpetual injunction restraining the Respondents from
arresting, inviting, intimidating, or harassing any of the judges whose
homes were raided in the “sting operation” conducted by the
DSS. He contended that the arrest and detention of the judges without
recourse to the NJC, was not only unconstitutional, but also aimed at
ridiculing the judiciary arm of government.
According to him, the action of the DSS was in gross violation of
rights of the judges as enshrined in sections 33, 34, 35, 36, and 41 of
the 1999 Constitution, as amended. Consequently, Ogungbeje sought ten
separate reliefs from the court, including award of N50billion as
general and exemplary damages against the Respondents, as well as
another N2million as cost of the suit. He equally prayed the court for
an order compelling the DSS to return to the judges, money that were
seized from their homes.
Meanwhile, in a bench ruling on Friday, Justice Gabriel Kolawole
directed that copies of the relevant court processes be served on all
the Respondents. The Judge held that the Respondents are entitled to
within seven days, respond to the suit.
However, Justice Kolawole refused an ex-parte motion the plaintiff
filed with a view to securing an interim order stopping the Respondents
from taking “any untoward action” against the embattled Judges,
pending determination of the suit. The Judge said he needed to resolve a
number of issues, including the locus-standi of the plaintiff, before
he could make a pronouncement on the prayer.
He said such resolution could only be made in an inter-party hearing involving all the Respondents.
Specifically, the plaintiff had through his counsel, Mr. Ayo Ogundele, 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.”
In a 39-paragraph affidavit he deposed in support of the substantive suit, the plaintiff averred: “That
the 1st (President Buhari), 2nd (DG of DSS), 3rd (DSS), 4th (AGF), and
5th (Inspector-General of Police) respondents never filed any petition
against the affected judges the 6th respondent (NJC).
“That 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. That the judiciary is an independent arm
of government in Nigeria and separate from the executive and the
legislature.
“That this illegal and unconstitutional action by the 1st, 2nd,
3rd, 4th and 5th respondents have been roundly condemned by the
Nigerian Bar Association.
“That 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”.
Source: Vanguard
No comments:
Post a Comment