Tinubu Asks Court To Dismiss Suit Seeking His Impeachment Over Rights Violations

President Bola Tinubu has urged the Federal High Court in Abuja to dismiss a suit seeking to compel the National Assembly to initiate impeachment proceedings against him over alleged human rights violations.

The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1334/2024, was filed by a legal practitioner, Olukoya Ogungbeje, who accused the Tinubu-led administration of suppressing peaceful protests and violating the constitutional rights of Nigerians.

Ogungbeje’s lawsuit named the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, as the second defendant.

In his petition, he sought six principal reliefs, including a court declaration that the alleged clampdown on peaceful protesters between August 1 and 10, 2024, constituted gross misconduct and was grounds for impeachment under Section 143 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

He urged the court to direct the National Assembly to commence impeachment proceedings against President Tinubu for violating the rights of Nigerians to peaceful assembly.

However, in a joint preliminary objection, President Tinubu and the Attorney-General of the Federation asked the court to strike out the case on multiple grounds, arguing that:

– The plaintiff lacks the locus standi (legal right) to institute the action, as he is not directly affected by the alleged violations.

– The suit fails to disclose any reasonable cause of action that warrants judicial intervention.

– The case was filed under a wrong procedure, making it incompetent and unlawful.

A legal team, led by Sanusi Musa, SAN, representing both defendants, challenged the jurisdiction of the court, contending that impeachment matters are exclusively a legislative function and not subject to judicial interference.

The 18-point argument submitted by the defense further stated that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit on behalf of unidentified citizens, failing to establish that his personal rights were violated.

“By the provision of Section 46 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), only persons whose fundamental rights have been breached can seek legal redress. The plaintiff cannot bring a case on behalf of ‘faceless citizens,’” the defense argued.

They maintained that the National Assembly, not the court, has the constitutional authority to determine whether an impeachment process should be initiated.

According to the defendants, “Pursuant to the provision of Section 46 (3), the Chief Justice of Nigeria has {brought into being the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009, which makes ample provision of the procedure to follow in filing an action with respect to a breach of the Fundamental Rights of any Nigerian.”

They argued that the plaintiff’s questions two and three for determination were in respect of the alleged breach of the 1999 Constitution by the 1st defendant (President Tinubu) vis-a-vis Section 143 of the said constitution.

The defendants maintained that the plaintiff failed to disclose any of his rights that were breached.

Likewise, in a counter affidavit that was deposed to one Gbemga Oladimeji, a principal state counsel in the Federal Ministry of Justice, he averred that contrary to the plaintiff’s claim, the President Tinubu-led government has been a promoter of democratic tenets.

He averred that the president had always allowed people to air their grievances and conduct peaceful protests.

“I know for a fact that the protest conducted between 1st August 2024 and 10th August 2024 was peaceful, as there was a court order limiting the protesters to demonstrate within a confined location,” he added.

The deponent added that during the protest, security agents under the control of the president were present to protect the protesters and ensure that their civil action was not hijacked by hoodlums.

“I know as a fact that the 1st defendant has always ensured that law and order are adhered to strictly by the security agencies and institutions of the arm of government.

“Contrary to the deposition in paragraph 26 of the Affidavit in support of the Originating Summons, I know as a fact that the 1st defendant has not violated any provision of his oath of office and allegiance.

“There has been no breach on his part that would warrant his impeachment from office as the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,” he further averred.

Meanwhile, Justice James Omotosho, on Monday, adjourned the case till March 4 to enable the counsel representing the plaintiff, Mr. Stanley Okonmah, to respond to the preliminary objection by President Tinubu and the AGF.