The activists namely; Emmanuel Larry, Anene Victor, Udoka Samuel, Gabriel Henry Nwodo and Ben Manasseh had dragged the Department of State Security Services ( DSS ), Director General of State Security Services, the Attorney-General of the Federation and Pastor Paul Enenche of Dunamis International Gospel Centre.
Five Nigerian youth activists who were illegally arrested by the Department of State Services (DSS) on July 4, 2021, for wearing T-shirts with #BuhariMustGo inscriptions to the Headquarters of the Dunamis International Gospel Centre, Abuja, has asked Justice Emeka Nwite of a Federal High Court in Abuja, to disqualify himself from further presiding over their suit bordering on enforcement of fundamental rights.
The activists namely; Emmanuel Larry, Anene Victor, Udoka Samuel, Gabriel Henry Nwodo and Ben Manasseh had dragged the Department of State Security Services ( DSS ), Director General of State Security Services, the Attorney-General of the Federation and Pastor Paul Enenche of Dunamis International Gospel Centre.
Meanwhile while delivering judgment in human rights activist, Omoyele Sowore's case, the judge had pronounced that the five youth activists who wore Buhari-Must-Go T-shirts could cause break down of law and order if not checked.
The five youth activists were the applicants in the consolidated cases and the issue in their cases was for the court to declare illegal their arrest and detention for wearing Buhari-Must-Go T-shirts.
In a fundamental rights enforcement suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/631/2021, FHC/ABJ/CS/636/2021, FHC/ABJ/CS/637/2021, FHC/ABJ/CS/638/2021, and FHC/ABJ/CS/639/2021, the plaintiffs are challenging their unlawful arrest and detention by the secret police.
The plaintiffs are asking the court to declare their arrest and detention unlawful, and also asked the court to award N10 million, each, in damages, for the violation of their fundamental rights.
At the resumed hearing of the case on Monday in a motion on notice obtained by SaharaReporters the plaintiffs are seeking a consequential order of the court remitting the case files of the consolidated suits to the Chief Judge for reassignment to another judge for further hearing.
Their counsel, Tope Temokun, submitted that the judge had already pronounced in Omoyele Sowore's case that wearing #BuhariMustGoT-shirts could cause breakdown of law and order noting that the judge had already prejudged the case against his clients and there was no way his clients would get fair hearing if he should go ahead with the case.
The motion on notice obtained by SaharaReporters read, “That the principal prayer of the applicants in these consolidated suits is for the determination of the legality and constitutionality of the arrest of the applicants (i.e. the five youth activists) on Sunday the 4th of July 2021 in the premises of the Dunamis International Gospel Centre, Abuja, by the combined efforts and collaboration of officials of the 4th Respondent and operatives of the 1st and 2nd Respondents, for wearing a adorning a clothing apparel with the inscription "BUHARI MUST GO!"
"That the pronouncements of your lordship reproduced above as contained in the judgment in SUIT NO: FHC/ABJ/CS/1238/2021 (OMOYELE SOWORE VS. NIGERIA POLICE FORCE & 3 ORS), delivered by Your Lordship on the 5th of July 2023, has practically determined the case of the applicants in the instant consolidated cases and this created a serious apprehension and doubts in my mind as to the likelihood of the Applicants not being accorded fair play and fair hearing in the determination of these suits against the Respondents, particularly because Your Lordship had at page 25-26 of the judgment, your lordship stated thus: "The Five Youth Activist under the Take-it-Back movement who adorn the inscription of "Buhari Must Go" as stated by the Applicant have the capacity of raising reasonable suspicion in the minds of any security agency in view of the fact that such protest if not check can lead to break down of law and order.
“And the applicant having by his own affidavit in support of the application admitted to being the convener and leader of Take-it-Back movement will definitely cause a reasonable suspicion in the minds of a serious security agency like a police.
"Moreso, the 4th Respondent averred that the reason for the restriction of the Applicant was for the overall interest of the law abiding citizens in order to avoid break down of law and order. Therefore, any actions by the 1st to 3rd Respondents except it is shown by clear evidence to be unlawful, is within the ambit of the law. The 1st to 3rd Respondents who acted based on the likelihood of breakdown of law and order by the Applicant cannot be held to have acted maliciously."
"At Page 28 of the judgment, your lordship stated thus: "In the instant case, the Applicant being the convener and leader of Take It Back Movement that had the inscription of "Buhari Must Go" cannot honestly believe that the act will not create the possibility in the mind of the 1st to 3rd Respondents that there is a reasonable suspicion of a crime and to prevent the commission of a criminal offence by the Applicant.”
The statements have created serious apprehension and doubt in the minds of the Applicants as to the possibility of the Applicants being accorded fair hearing in the determination of their suits against the Respondents.
“That the 3d Respondent herein was the 4th Respondent in the in SUIT NO: FHC/ABJ/CS/1238/2021 (OMOYELE SOWORE VS. NIGERIA POLICE FORCE & 3 ORS), where your lordship made the statements under reference and this has created serious apprehension and doubt in the minds of the Applicants as to the likelihood of bias against them in the determination of their suits against the Respondents. That pursuant to Section 36 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (As Amended), it is in the interest of justice, fair play and fair hearing that your lordship refrain from further adjudicating/ or presiding over the hearing of these suits.”
The judge after he had listened to the counsel to the plaintiffs said he had not read through the application and that he needed more time to go through it.
He also asked the counsels to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents if they had an intention to file a counter motion.
He therefore adjourned the matter to November 11, 2023 for hearing.