NIGERIA: Court rules on #Bringbackourgirls rally ban July 14

Mr. Femi Falana

A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory in Maitama, Abuja, on Thursday fixed July 14 for judgment in a suit challenging an earlier ban of BringBackOurGirls rallies in Abuja by the FCT Commissioner of Police, Mr. Joseph Mbu.

Before the matter was argued and adjourned for judgment on Friday, counsel for the 17 applicants, who instituted the suit on behalf of their group, Mr. Femi Falana (SAN), dropped the prayer seeking N200m as compensation against Mbu.

Falana informed the court that his clients had instructed him to drop the prayer as “this suit is not about money.”

Justice S. E Aladetoyinbo adjourned for judgment after hearing parties’ opposing arguments at the Friday’s proceedings.

The applicants, who claimed to be members of the Women for Peace and Justice #BringBackOurGirls, include Hadiza Bala Usman, Mr. Samuel Yaga, Mrs. Rebecca Yaga, Mrs. Sarah Ishaya, Mallam Dunama Mpur, Lawan Abana, Dr. Pogu Bitrus and Dauda Iliya.

Others are Kibaku Area Development Association and Maryam Uwais, Obiageli Ezekwesili, Bashir Yusuf, Jibrin Ibrahim, Saudatu Mahdi, Bukky Shonibare, Rotimi Olawale and Florence Ozor.

The applicants and their group engage in daily protests, calling on the Federal Government to intensify efforts towards rescuing the over 200 schoolgirls abducted from Government Secondary School, Chibok, Borno State, by the purported violent Islamic sect, Boko Haram, on April 14.

Mbu had, on January 1, unilaterally banned rallies and protests relating to the abducted girls in Abuja with immediate effect.

But the Inspector-General of Police, Mr. Mohammed Abubakar, later overruled him, reiterating that all Nigerians had the rights to a peaceful protest.

But at the hearing of the suit filed on June 3, Falana insisted that the purported directive banning rallies in Abuja, even though it has been reversed by the Inspector-General of Police, amounted to a violation of his client’s rights.

He argued that the deposition of the police in thier counter-affidavit, to the effect that his client’s suit had been overtaken by the reversal of the purported ban, was an admission that indeed, the applicant’s rights were violated.