Justice Peter Lifu dismissed the motion ex parte, marked FHC/ABS/CS/1149/2024, on Monday, August 12, 2024.
An application seeking an order of interim injunction restraining Nigerian protesters under different platforms from continuing with the ongoing protests using the hashtags #EndBadGovernanceInNigeria has been rejected.
The application was rejected by the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja.
Justice Peter Lifu dismissed the motion ex parte, marked FHC/ABS/CS/1149/2024, on Monday, August 12, 2024.
A motion ex parte is a kind of application where a party seeks an order of the court against another party without notifying the latter in advance.
Messrs Danladi Goje, Buky Abayomi, Adiza Abbo, and thirteen other Nigerians filed the motion ex parte (dated August 12, 2024) seeking the enforcement of their fundamental rights against the organizations involved with the #EndBadGovernanceInNigeria protests.
The applicants sued organizations such as Take It Back Movement, Concerned Nigerians, Nigerians Against Hunger, Initiative For Change, Human Rights Co-advocacy Initiative, Nigerian Against Corruption Initiative, Citizens For Change Advocacy Initiative, and Timely Intervention (1st to 8th respondents).
Others sued were Active Citizens Group, Students For Change, We Coalition, Total Intervention, Refurbished Nigeria, Tomorrow Today, Our Future In Our Hands Initiative, Youths Against Tyranny, Save Nigeria Movement, Omoyele Sowore, and Social Democratic Party (SDP) (9th to 19th respondents).
The rest are the Attorney General Of The Federation and security agencies.
The applicants’ lawyer, Tsembelee Sorkaa, stated in his process that the right to life, personal liberty, private and family life, movement, property, and economic development of his clients is likely to be breached by the ongoing protest in Nigeria organized by the 1st to 19th respondents who are using the hashtag #EndBadGovernanceInNigeria.
He then asked the court to restrain the 1st to 19th respondents from continuing with the ongoing protest in Nigeria pending the determination of his motion on notice.
He also urged the court to direct security agencies to give effect to the restraining order if granted.
He equally requested an order of substituted service on the 1st to 19th respondents through any national newspaper, citing urgency.
In his motion on notice, where he sought an injunction against the respondents, the lawyer argued that “the previous protests in Nigeria in 2020, hashtag #EndSARS, led to the deaths of innocent Nigerians and massive lootings and destructions of properties in Nigeria. This was widely reported in the media.”
At the resumed sitting, Sorkaa urged the judge to grant his motion ex parte, saying the first to nineteenth respondents are the ones involved in the protest.
On his prayers to serve them via newspaper publications, he explained that the respondents (1st to 19th) don’t have offices in Nigeria and there is no fixed address anywhere where they can be served personally.
But the judge held that it was not good for the lawyer to rush his notice ex parte especially without providing the required affidavit to support his requests for an interim injunction and substituted service.
“Where is the affidavit that will grant your prayers for substituted service? Don’t they have an address? Are they registered under the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA)?” the judge queried, observing the lawyer “doesn’t have any affidavit to back” his motion ex parte.
Besides, Justice Lifu said that the protest in question ended last week and there is no evidence presented before the court by the lawyer that the protesters would reconvene later.
“I have carefully considered the prayers in the instant motion (ex parte). In my view, the motion is not grantable.
“The prayers for substituted service are not grantable.
“The entire application lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed,” the judge said.
The court subsequently adjourned the hearing on the motion on notice to August 29, 2024.