Detained #EndBadGovernace nationwide protesters have faulted the court order that permitted their arrest and detention as they told President Bola Tinubu that he has no right to arrest them, especially being one of the biggest beneficiaries of protests and dissents.

The protesters, in a suit number marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1233/2024, challenged the August 22, 2024, Federal high court order issued by Justice Emeka Nwite that permitted the Inspector General of police to remand them for 60 days pending the conclusion of the investigation.

The applicants, Opaluwa Eleojo and 48 others, in a motion on notice filed on August 26 and obtained by our correspondent on Saturday, sued the Inspector General of Police as the sole respondent in the suit through a consortium of lawyers led by a human rights lawyer, Femi Falana, SAN.

Recall that the Nigerian youths had taken to the streets in most parts of the nation between August 1 and 10 to bemoan the economic hardship in the country.

The applicants, In the motion on notice, argued that the motion ex-parte on which their remand was approved was predicated on suppression and misrepresentation of material facts.

They contended that the motion ex-parte constitutes a gross abuse of the court process and, on this grounds, sought the order of the court to set aside, discharge and or vacate the exparte order that approved their remand in prison for 60 days.

They also sought an order from the court to grant them bail.

“An Order of this Honourable court granting bail to the respondents/applicants pending the completion of investigation being conducted by the applicant/respondent on liberal terms”.

The protesters, in an affidavit deposed to by one Paul Ochayi, maintained that “protest is a right and in fact, the president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Asiwaju Ahmed Bola Tinubu had led protests in the past without being harassed, detained or remanded”.

They contended that by virtue of the actions of the security agencies, their right to life, the dignity of the human person, health and freedom of movement have been put under threat as same is currently being violated by the police without any justification known to law.

They also challenged the remand orders on the ground that the trial judge has no jurisdiction to grant the exparte order he made pursuant to section 299 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015.

“The said order of the Honorable Court breached the fundamental human rights provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

“The detention of the respondents/applicants for an initial period beyond 48 hours before the grant of the ex-parte order is illegal by virtue of Section 35 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

“The honourable 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)”.

The applicants argued that the ex-parte order brought pursuant to Section 66 (1) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2022, was obtained to legalise their illegal detention as the motion exparte did not disclose any fact capable of linking them to any terrorism activity or treasonable felony. (Saturday PUNCH)

Update news