FRANCIS IWUCHUKWU 
FRANCIS IWUCHUKWU writes that lawyers have frowned at the recent court injunctions restricting the movement of #Endbadgovernance protesters in some states and the FCT
The recent court rulings which restricted the movement of some angry Nigerians currently protesting against bad governance in the country has drew the ire of some senior lawyers.
The lawyers while baring their minds on the issue at the weekend said there was no need for the restrictive orders as such directive would be difficult to comply with and cannot be enforced if breached.
A rights organisation, Access to Justice had earlier queried the rationale behind the restrictive order issued by a Lagos High Court on two days to the commencement of the #Endbadgovernance protest across the country. Justice Emmanuel Ogundare of a Lagos High Court had upon the granting of an ex-parte motion by the Attorney General of Lagos State and Commissioner of Lagos, Lawal Pedro (SAN), seeking restrictive orders against the protesters.
In the order, the protesters movement were restricted to Gani Fawehinmi Freedom Park, Ikorodu Road, Ojota, Lagos State, and Peace Park, Ketu, Lagos between the hours of 8am to 6pm.
However, while criticizing the move via a statement, Access to Justice said the High Court ruling questions judiciary’s impartiality and independence.
In the statement signed by its Convener, Joseph Otteh, Access to Justice described the ruling as unfortunate, saying it will occasion reputational harm not only on the Lagos judiciary, but on the nation’s judiciary as a whole. Otteh noted that the orders of the court undercut principles universally regarded as fundamental to the exercise of judicial power, as well as the normative contents of globally recognised rights.
“First, the court makes orders which substantively determine how a person’s rights may be exercised – not temporarily, but substantively – without giving such persons the right to a hearing.
“It is a rudimentary principle, elemental to the exercise of all judicial power, that every person is entitled to be heard before any orders are made against him. “Secondly, the court restricts the manner fundamental rights can be exercised without legal justification.
“Section 45(1) of the Constitution of Nigeria provides that the right to freedom of expression may be restricted by a law that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society (a) in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health; or (b) for the purpose of protecting the rights and freedom or other persons.
“As far as we know, there was no law made or cited to the court on the basis of which the court could curtail the exercise of a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution. “Had such a law even been made, the court would be further required to assess whether the law is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society”, Otteh argued.
While explaining that a court is bound to engage in this interlocking legal analysis before it could validly restrict the enjoyment of a constitutional right, Otteh expressed disappointment that the court did not, but acted as though a government had the right, arbitrarily, willy-nilly, to request an injunction to limit the exercise of a right without reference to any legal standards.
Restrictive orders of court
It all started in Lagos when Justice Emmanuel Ogundare of the State High Court restricted protesters in the state to the Gani Fawehinmi Freedom Park in Ojota and Peace Park, Ketu. Justice Ogundare arrived at the decision consequent upon the granting of a pre-emptive ex-parte application filed by the Attorney General (AG) and Commissioner for Justice, Lawal Pedro (SAN) seeking to maintain and secure public safety and prevent irreparable loss of lives and property in the state during the period of the protests.
The co-defendants in the suit are; Adamma Ukpabi and Tosin Harsogba (for Active Citizens Group), Comrade Juwon Sanyaolu and Hassan Soweto (for Take it Back Movement), Persons unknown and Commissioner of Police (CP), Lagos State.
Moving the application, Pedro maintained that as the Chief Law Officer of the state and having been privy to notices by different interests who are for and against the nationwide protest, there is a need to protect the critical infrastructures of the state and prevent an irreparable loss of lives and property as witnessed during the EndSARS protest in 2020.
The AG who maintained that the police do not have sufficient manpower to provide security support for the protesters who planned to protest in all the local government councils and public highways and other areas of public access in the state, insisted that there is a need to prevent the protest from being hijacked by hoodlums who are prepared to breach law and order and cause destruction in different locations in the state in the pretext of public protest against alleged bad governance.
Pedro said, “In recognition of the citizens’ fundamental right to stage a public protest against government policies and actions, but prevent unlawful destruction of lives and property in the process, the Lagos State Government has designated two public spaces and locations in the state where citizens can meet and converge to protest or express their displeasure against government.
“The locations are; Gani Fawehinmi Freedom Park, Ojota, Lagos State, and Peace Park, Ketu, Lagos State. “Public protest in all the local government councils and public highways, as well as other areas of public access in the state for 10 days is a deliberate plan to shut down the state, and if this is allowed, it will amount to economic sabotage.
“An order of the court is required in the circumstances to protect the fundamental rights of the 1st to 5th defendants/respondents to protest, and other residents opposed to the protest to go about their lawful businesses without harassment, disturbance, and destruction of public buildings/property”.
In his ruling on the application, Justice Ogundare held: “An order of pre-emptive remedy by way of interim injunction is hereby granted restraining the 1st to 5th defendants/ respondents whether by themselves, their agents, privies, servants or any other person(s) acting through them from converging and carrying out their proposed peaceful public protest, rallies, procession and meetings in Lagos State from the 1st-10th August 2024 excerpt in the approved designated location for peaceful public protest, rallies and meetings, to wit: Gani Fawehinmi Freedom Park, Ikorodu Road, Ojota, Lagos State and Peace Park, Ketu, Lagos from 8 am to 6 pm pending compliance with the pre-action protocol by the claimant. “An order of pre-emptive remedy by way of interim preservative order is hereby granted directing the 6th defendant to protect the
The orders would be difficult to comply with and not capable of being enforced if breached
fundamental rights of the 1st to 5th defendants/respondents to freedom of association, peaceful public protest, procession, and rallies in the approved designated location for peaceful public protest, rallies, and meetings in Lagos State, to wit: Gani Fawehinmi Freedom Park, Ikorodu Road, Ojota, Lagos and Peace Park, Ketu, Lagos, from 8 am to 6 pm on August 1-10, 2024 pending compliance with the pre-action protocol by the claimant.
“An order of pre-emptive remedy by way of interim preservative order is hereby granted directing the 6th defendant to protect the fundamental rights of the 1st to 5th defendants/respondents to freedom of association, peaceful public protest, procession, and rallies in the approved designated location for peaceful public protest, rallies, and meetings in Lagos State, to wit: Gani Fawehinmi Freedom Park, Ikorodu Road, Ojota, Lagos and Peace Park, Ketu, Lagos, from 8 am to 6 pm on August 1-10, 2024 pending compliance with the pre-action protocol by the claimant.
“An order of substituted service of the order of this court in this matter, the Memorandum of Claim/Letter of Claim and all other pre-action protocols documents on the 1st-5th defendants/respondents by Newspaper publication in a National daily to wit: any other widely read newspaper and the service shall be deemed as good and sufficient service on the defendants/respondents”.
In a related development, an Ogun State High Court also directed the sponsors of the #Endbadgovernance protests to limit their activities to four locations in the state. Handling down the restrictive order on the eve of the commencement of the protest, the court presided over by Justice Olugboyega Ogunfowora restricted the time frame of the protests to between 8 am and 5 pm.
The judge gave the verdict while granting an application canvassed by the Ogun State Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Oluwasina Ogungbade (SAN) seeking to restrain the protesters to certain locations in the state for their protest.
In his verdict, Justice Ogunfowora restrained the protesters from protesting anywhere in the state except at the MKO Abiola Stadium, Abeokuta; Ansar-ud-Deen Comprehensive High School, Ota; Remo Divisional High School, Sagamu; and Dipo Dina Stadium, Ijebu-Ode. The judge equally prohibited any protest from taking place outside the hours of 8 am to 5 pm.
He also directed the Commissioner of Police (CP) to enforce the order and ensure that the protests are held only in the specified locations and during the periods stated in the order, saying the order would last for seven days and ordered the state to serve the application on notice within that period.
At the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Justice Sylvanus Oriji of an FCT High Court also granted an order restricting protesters to the MKO Abiola Stadium in the nation’s capital. Justice Oriji took the decision in a ruling on an ex-parte application brought before him by the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike.
According to the exparte application argued by counsel for the FCT Minister, Ogwu Onoja, Wike had applied for an order of interim injunction restraining the five leaders of the protesting groups from gathering or parading themselves along any roadway, streets, offices, and public premises within the FCT between August 1 to August 10, or any other day thereafter, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.
The FCT minister equally made an application for another order of interim injunction mandating the security agencies to prevent the protesting leaders from gathering or parading themselves along any roadway, offices, or public premises within the FCT between August 1 and 10, pending the hearing of his motion on notice.
Wike while maintaining that the Federal Government was not averse to the protest, disclosed that intelligence and security reports reaching him indicated that some elements within the leadership of the protesters intend to capitalise on the planned protest to cause havoc and irreparable damages to public facilities and blocking of roadways to prevent movement of persons and vehicles and disturb public peace.
There was a similar injunction in Kwara State, as Justice Jibril Bio Salihu of the State High Court mandated organisers of the protest to restrict themselves to the Metropolitan Square in Ilorin, the state capital. Granting an ex-parte order, the court said it agreed with the AG of the state and Commissioner for Justice, Ibrahim Sulyman, that such a protest could degenerate into violence if protesters are allowed to do as they wish.
Lawyers’ Speak
In His Position On The Recent Rulings Of The Courts In Lagos, Ogun, Kwara And The Fct, Abuja, Which had restricted Nigerians to particular locations to protest against bad governance, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Dr Abiodun Layonu declared that a court order was not necessary in the first instance.
Layonu said: “For so many reasons, the orders would be difficult to comply with and not capable of being enforced if breached. “How many people would you arrest, even if they were peacefully moving away from the stadium in breach of the order? “In fact, it could escalate events.
As we are seeing on TV, for instance, in Abuja where the protesters decided to move to Eagle Square in Abuja from MKO Abiola stadium that was ordered by the court. “What would happen if the police decided to forcefully restrict them to the stadium as per the order?
What of other places like Gombe where the police had to disperse them from the Emirs palace as there was a sign of breakdown of law and order? “If the protest is turning riotous, no court order is needed to disperse them wherever they congregate, whether a court ordered place or not”.
Speaking in the same vein, Amobi Nzelu (SAN) expressed the disappointment that the same government which finds it difficult to obey court orders has now resorted to getting orders through exparte applications to restrict citizens to particular locations in their bid to express their grievances over the situation of things in the country.
“You see, that is the kind of judiciary we have today,” he said. In his comments, MBA Ukweni (SAN), said it is embarrassing that a court would make such an order restricting Nigerians to particular locations to express their feelings over
Government should have learnt not to rush to court on the eve of a protest by young people
happenings in the nation. The silk said: “Why did the court not make an order directing the police to ensure that they provide security for the people who are to protest, which is the constitutional and statutory duties of the police to do. 
“The people have a right to protest and express their grievances, just as the police has a duty to protect the protesters.
“The only thing the police would do is to step out to ensure that there is no violence. It is only the person they see committing any act of violence that would now attract the police to a remedial action by either arresting the person and taking good charge of him or they prevent the occurrence of such a crime.
“I don’t know why government have been so apprehensive of demonstrations. But I can tell you for free that the government is apprehensive because it is a bad government. “It is the government that should be held responsible for any violence that takes place”.
Femi Falana (SAN) also faulted the governments of Lagos and Ogun states, as well as the FCT Administration for rushing to court to seek orders restricting protesters to certain locations.
“I think the government should have learnt not to rush to court on the eve of a strike action by workers, or the eve of a protest by young people because the difficulty with such orders is that they are never served on those they are made to restrain.
“For instance, the order in Lagos was not served on anybody, the orders in Ogun State were not served on anybody, the order in Abuja, I think one of the defendants is said to be ‘unknown persons. Now, how do you serve court orders on unknown persons?”
