Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday dismissed an application seeking an interim injunction to stop demonstrators from continuing the #EndBadGovernanceInNigeria protest.
Aggrieved Nigerians, frustrated by the country’s economic suffering, marched from August 1 to 10 to protest the elimination of gasoline subsidies, bad government, and mounting hunger.
Danladi Goje, Buky Abayomi, Adiza Abbo, and 13 other Nigerians filed an application on August 12 seeking the enforcement of their fundamental rights against the parties that organised the protests.
The applicants sued 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, Timely Intervention Organisations, Active Citizens Group, and Students For Change We Coalition as the first through tenth respondents, respectively.
The applicants also sued Total Intervention, Refurbished Nigeria, Tomorrow Today, Our Future In Our Hands Initiative, Youths Against Tyranny, Save Nigeria Movement, Omoyele Sowore, and the Social Democratic Party (SDP) as the 11th through 19th respondents.
Other respondents in the case include the federation’s attorney general and security agencies. In his ruling, Justice Lifu denied the ex parte motion for lack of merit.
The trial judge ruled that the #EndBadGovernance demonstration concluded last week, noting that no evidence was given to the court indicating that the demonstrators will reassemble later.
The judge stated that the applicants’ counsel cannot serve his notice ex parte without submitting the necessary affidavit to support the demands for an interim injunction and substituted service.
He later postponed the hearing on the request on notice until August 29.
Tsembelee Sorkaa, the applicants’ lawyer, alleged in court records that his client’s rights to life, personal liberty, private and family life, and economic activities would be violated further if the first to 19th respondents continued their protest.
Sorkaa sought the court to prevent the first through nineteenth respondents from continuing with the protest awaiting the outcome of his application on notice.
The lawyer also asked the court to enforce the restraining order if it is granted.
