According to report, President Bola Tinubu has urged the Federal High Court in Abuja to dismiss a lawsuit seeking to compel the National Assembly to initiate impeachment proceedings against him over alleged human rights violations. The case, identified as FHC/ABJ/CS/1334/2024, was filed by legal practitioner Olukoya Ogungbeje, who accused Tinubu's administration of suppressing peaceful protests organized by Nigerian citizens. Ogungbeje argued that such actions constitute an impeachable offense under the law.
The Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, is also named as a defendant in the case. Ogungbeje is seeking six key reliefs, including a court declaration that the alleged suppression of citizens' rights to protest amounts to a violation of democratic principles. He also urged the court to compel the National Assembly to commence impeachment proceedings, asserting that the government's actions undermine constitutional rights.
In their response, the defendants, represented by a legal team led by Senior Advocate of Nigeria Sanusi Musa, have asked the court to dismiss the suit for lacking merit. They argued that the case is incompetent and fails to disclose any reasonable grounds for the court to intervene. Furthermore, the defense maintained that the plaintiff has not demonstrated any direct legal grievance warranting judicial discretion in his favor.
Challenging the validity of the suit, President Tinubu and the Attorney-General also questioned the court's jurisdiction to hear the case. They argued that impeachment matters fall solely within the National Assembly's purview, emphasizing that the judiciary lacks the authority to interfere. This stance aligns with previous court decisions that uphold the separation of powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government.
Legal analysts note that the case raises significant constitutional and civil rights issues, likely drawing widespread legal and political interest. The court has yet to announce a date for its ruling on the preliminary objections, but experts suggest the outcome could set a precedent for similar cases in the future.
As criticism continues to mount against the administration's handling of protests and civil rights, the defendants remain firm in their plea for the court to dismiss the case as baseless. They insist that the plaintiff's claims do not meet the legal threshold required for judicial intervention.
Comments