Protest: Court adjourns hearing in FCT minister’s motion
Justice Sylvanus Oriji of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court has postponed the hearing of the FCT minister’s motion regarding the restriction order on participants in the hunger protest until September 4.
The adjournment followed the submission by Moses Ebute, SAN, counsel for the FCT minister, who informed the court that he had served the motion on notice to the respondents. Dr. S.M. Oyeghe, representing the 1st to 4th respondents, did not object but requested that the motion be served on them in court. Other respondents were neither present nor legally represented.
Justice Oriji instructed the claimant’s counsel to serve all respondents and set September 4 as the new date for the motion.
The respondents include Omoyele Sowore, Damilare Adenola, Adama Ukpabi, Tosin Harsogba, persons unknown, the Inspector General of Police, the Commissioner of Police, the Director-General of the Department of State Services, the Director-General of the Nigeria Civil Defence Corps, the Chief of Army Staff, the Chief of Air Staff, and the Chief of Naval Staff.
On July 31, Justice Oriji acknowledged the protesters’ rights but imposed restrictions, allowing the protest only at the Moshood Abiola Stadium due to concerns raised by the minister. The court’s decision aimed to balance the protesters’ rights with the need to prevent disruptions and damage to property.
The court also ordered that all legal documents, including the confinement order, be published in newspapers. This decision followed an application by Dr. Ogwu Onoja SAN on behalf of the FCT Minister.
During a session on August 13, the FCT Minister’s lawyer, Onoja, alerted the court to a statement from Damilare Adenola suggesting a possible extension of the protests beyond the initial 10 days. Onoja argued for extending the order to maintain peace in the FCT, given the uncertainty of the respondents’ future actions.
The judge granted the request, confirming that the order from July 31 remained in effect, and directed that the respondents be served with a hearing notice before the next adjourned date. The hearing for the motion on notice was subsequently rescheduled to August 22.
