Hardship Protest Restriction: Court’s judgment would occasion reputational harm to Nigerian judiciary, Says Access to Justice

CHIEF JUSTICE OF NIGERIA, KAYODE ARIWOOLA 

Access to Justice, a Lagos-based rights organisation has described the verdict of Justice Emmanuel Ogundare of the Lagos State High Court which granted injunctions restraining persons associated with the August 1st-10th planned protests from converging and carrying out their proposed peaceful public protest, rallies, procession and meetings in Lagos State except in the approved designated location for peaceful public protest, rallies and meetings, to wit: Gani Fawehinmi Freedom Park, Ikorodu Road, Ojota, Lagos State and Peace Park Ketu Lagos from 8 am to 6 pm pending compliance with the pre-action protocol by the claimant, as unfortunate and that the same would occasion reputational harm to not just the Lagos judiciary, but the Nigerian judiciary. 

Joseph Otteh, the Convener of the group, in a statement, maintained that the directives of the court undercut principles universally regarded as fundamental to the exercise of judicial power as well as the normative contents of globally recognised rights. 

According to him, “First, the court makes orders which substantively determine how a person’s rights may be exercised – not temporarily, but substantively — without giving such persons the right to a hearing. 

“It is a rudimentary principle, elemental to the exercise of all judicial power, that every person is entitled to be heard before any orders are made against him.

“Secondly, the court restricts the manner fundamental rights can be exercised without legal justification. 

“Section 45(1) of the Constitution of Nigeria provides that the right to freedom of expression may be restricted by a law that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society (a) in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health, or (b) for the purpose of protecting the rights and freedom or other persons.

“As far as we know, there was no law made or cited to the court based on which the court could curtail the exercise of a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution. 

“Had such a law even been made, the court would be further required to assess whether the law is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.”

In challenging the government, law enforcement and security forces to let the people express their voices and state their case in any shades of colour or strides of motion they choose, Access to Justice posited that “This is an obligation governments owe its citizens under the constitution and several regional and international treaties, instruments, and standards.

“With respect to the court, it failed, in a rather deplorable manner, and at a time when the judiciary’s ability to safeguard civil liberties is being tested, to exercise the role the constitution has reserved for the judiciary, which is to act as a bulwark against arbitrariness and tyranny. 

“Orders like the ones this court has made will surely raise eyebrows and trigger profound questions of the independence and impartiality of this court and, indeed, Nigerian courts. 

“It is very plausible to argue that a truly independent court, conscious of its constitutional role, will not make orders which limit the exercise of fundamental rights the way this court has done.”

Otteh equally described the Nigerian Bar Association’s position on the planned protest as a ‘Kick in the Gut for Rule of Law.’

Otteh posited, “The Nigerian Bar Association’s intervention on the planned hunger protests #EndBadGovernance, is starkly dissuasive, with the body arguing that the protests could have a devastating effect on the country and could like the #EndSARS protests have a negative impact on the economy. 

“The NBA President instead called for the voice of reason to prevail now. In language, tone, and substance, the NBA’s position on the protest is misplaced; its voice echoes for the wrong candidate and its weight is behind the lesser cause. 

“As an organisation founded to defend the rule of law, the Bar ought to be more concerned with expanding civic spaces for the expression of civil rights, and to defend those who desire to exercise those rights within constitutional boundaries, and it is hardly the place of the Bar to justify why citizens ought not to exercise their rights, particularly when it notes that there is widespread hunger in the land.”

All rights reserved. This material and other digital content on this website may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed in whole or in part without the prior express written permission of THE NEWS ACCELERATOR NETWORK.

For advertising inquiries, news coverage or press releases, contact thenewsacceleratornetwork@gmail.com or 08051017159.