ABUJA— former Liberian leader, Mr Charles Taylor was yesterday absent at the Federal high Court, Abuja where legal moves are on-going to overturn a political asylum granted him last August by the Federal Government. He was also not represented by a lawyer.
But Justice Stephen Adah presiding over the case yesterday took judicial notice of a report by two Nigerians challenging the asylum granted him by the Federal Government to the effect that the former Liberian warlord had been properly served as ordered by the court. The two Nigerians are Messrs Emmanuel Egbunam and David Anyaele. Both had their hands hacked off by Sierra-Leonean rebels.
Commencing hearing in the case yesterday, Justice Adah entertained three applications brought by the amputees including a motion seeking to hear both the preliminary objection filed by the Federal Government challenging the jurisdiction of the court and the substantive matter together.
The amputees requested for the leave of the court in the first two applications to use affidavits earlier filed in the case for the prosecution of their originating motion, prayers that were granted by the judge since there was no opposition to them.
But their third application praying the court to hear both the preliminary objection of the Federal Government to the suit and the substantive suit together was opposed by the Federal Government.
According to the Federal Government, although there was nothing wrong in law to hear the two together as being suggested, yet it contended that because of the nature of the originating motion filed, there would be a need to call oral evidence to resolve certain contradictions noticeable in the amputees’’ affidavit evidence.
Efforts by the amputees’ lawyer, Mr M. B. Ganiyu to invite the court to hold that hearing the preliminary objection separately would amount to wasting the precious time of the court were futile as the trial judge held that he would hear the objection first.
Said the judge: “If a party has indicated early in the case that they may call oral evidence, the court will not refuse to take cognizance of such request.
“Because of the nature of this case, the preliminary objection will be heard separately. To allay the fear of delay, this matter shall be given accelerated hearing. The matter is hereby adjourned till September 15, 2004 for the hearing of the preliminary objection,” he added.
Specifically, the thrust of the preliminary objection before the court is that the amputees have no locus standi; that the separate actions instituted by the two of them, now consolidated, are statute barred by the provision of the Public Officers Protection Act and the rules of the court and that each of the actions discloses no cause of action known to law.
By implication, if the application by the Federal Government challenging the jurisdiction of the Federal high court succeeds, the substantive suit will witness a natural death. But if the bid fails, then hearing in the substantive matter will begin.
