Court Hears Suit Against Emergency Rule July 15
From Lillian Okenwa in Abuja
A Federal High Court Abuja has fixed hearing in the suit filed by Chief Gani Fawehinmi, SAN and 15 other civil rights groups challenging the May 19, 2004 state of emergency declared by President Olusegun Obasanjo for July 15.
The Attorney General of Plateau State, Mr. Yusuf Pam has filed a preliminary objection urging a Federal High Court Abuja to hands off the action. Pam's argument was that the court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the plaintiffs do not have the capacity to institute the action.
Last week Federal Government through its lawyer, Chief Afe Babalola, SAN, filed its objection at the same Court urging it to dismiss the suit in its entirety.
Babalola's objection was premised on the grounds that the originating summons through which the action was commenced did not comply with the mandatory condition precedent to the issuance of a valid originating summons.
Federal Government also holds that the plaintiffs lacked the locus standi to institute the suit and that the action having been commenced by originating summons is incompetent.
Meanwhile, the court has fixed hearing on the matter for July 15, 2004.
Joined as defendants in the suit filed by the rights groups are Obasanjo, Plateau State's Sole Administrator, Major General Chris Alli (Rtd.), Senate President Adolphus Wabara, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Aminu Masari, Chief Joshua Dariye, Governor of Plateau State, Chief Michael Bot-Mang, Deputy Governor Plateau State, Plateau State House of Assembly and the Attorney General of Plateau State.
Plateau State Attorney General in the objection claimed that in making the declaration, President Obasanjo and the Senate President acted under Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution.
Amongst other reasons advanced by Pam was that, "the group has failed to show that their personal interest will immediately be or have been adversely affected or that such interest is being, has been or is likely to be adversely affected by the action (or inaction) of the defendants."
"The plaintiffs have failed to show how their political meetings or enlightenment programmes or any other activity for that matter have been adversely affected by the actions and inactions of the defendants under the State of Emergency in Plateau state."
He also pointed out that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter as the plaintiffs have failed to show that they are duly authorized to represent the organisations stated under their respective names.
|
