Court Refuses To  To Vacate Restraining Order On Igboho

An Oyo State High Court sitting in Ibadan, has rejected the plea of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami (SAN), to strike out the suit of Yoruba nation agitator, Sunday Adeyemo popularly known Sunday Igboho.

The AGF through his led counsel, Abdullahi Abubakar arguing that the court does not have the jurisdiction to hear the case.

 Sunday Igboho is seeking an order of the court to declare invasion of his Ibadan residence by operatives of Department of State Security (DSS) on July 1 as illegal and infringement on his fundamental human rights.

He wanted the  the same order  extended to  his aides and guests who were arrested and taken to Abuja by the DSS men.

Justice Ladiran Akintola of Oyo State High Court, had on August 4, 2021 gave restraining order against the Department of State Services (DSS) and the Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami (SAN), from arresting, intimidating, harassing and freezing the bank accounts of Yoruba nation agitator, Sunday Adeyemo popularly known as Sunday Igboho.

The restraining order was developed from the originating summons seeking N500 billion damages for the invasion of Igboho’s residence in Ibadan, the Oyo State capital, on July 1.

According to Justice Akintola in his ruling on August 4, 2021 granted an order of injunction restraining the respondents, their agents, privies, and/or associates in other security forces and/or anybody acting on their behalf and/or instructions from killing, arresting, detaining, molesting, harassing, and/or in way interfere with the applicant’s fundamental rights to life, personal liberty, freedom of movement and peaceful enjoyment of his property without fear of invasion of his house by the respondents and their agents pending the hearing of the applicant’s originating motion.

Also an order restraining the respondents, their agents, privies and/or associates in other security forces and/or anybody acting on their behalf and/or instructions from blocking the accounts of the applicant in any bank and/or placing no debit thereon and directing them to lift same where they had so acted pending the hearing of the applicant’s originating summon.

On Wednesday, the counsel to Malami, led by Mr Abdulahi Abubakar, filed the objection along with a motion on notice which they moved at resumed hearing of the case in Ibadan.

In the motion on notice, the AGF asked for time extension to enable him file the preliminary objection, counter affidavit and written address in opposition to Igboho’s application. But the motion was opposed by Igboho’s lawyers, led by Chief Yomi Alliyu (SAN), on the grounds that extension of time could not be applied because time is of essence in the nature of the suit.

With Alliyu were Mr Adekola Olawoye (SAN), Oladipo Olasope (SAN) and seven other lawyers.

Alliyu argued that the law stipulates that replies shall be given within five days, stressing that Malami had nowhere to hide because the case is about fundamental human rights.

He said by filing the motion on notice, Malami had called for the discretion of the court.

He, therefore, urged Justice Ladiran Akintola to exercise discretion instead of granting Malami’s application.

In his preliminary objection to Igboho’s suit, Malami argued that the claims for unlawful killing of Igboho’s aides can not be brought under fundamental human rights enforcement procedure, adding that claims for damages and unlawful invasion of Igboho’s residence in Ibadan, on July 1, can also not be resolved by way of affidavit evidence without calling witnesses, among others.

After listening to both parties,  Justice Akintola allowed Malami’s lawyers to move his application seeking for more time but rejected the plea to dismiss the suit, and awarded N50,000 cost in favour of Aliyu and his team.

Justice Akintola adjourned further hearing on the matter  till August 30, this year.

 He maintained that an order restraining the AGF, DSS or any other security agency from arresting or harassing Igboho still subsists till the next adjournment when the substantive case will be determined.