June 1 has been fixed for the hearing
suit trying to stop the House of Representatives from taking further steps to
pass the controversial Control of Infectious Diseases Bill 2020.
suit trying to stop the House of Representatives from taking further steps to
pass the controversial Control of Infectious Diseases Bill 2020.
Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu adjourned the
case to enable the plaintiff who is a former federal lawmaker, Senator Dino
Melaye, to effect service of the court processes on all the Respondents.
case to enable the plaintiff who is a former federal lawmaker, Senator Dino
Melaye, to effect service of the court processes on all the Respondents.
Cited as Respondents in the suit
FHC/ABJ/CS/463/2020, are the Clerk of the National Assembly, the Clerk of the
House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Femi
Gbajabiamila, the Attorney-General of the Federation, Mr. Abubakar Malami, and
the Inspector-General of Police, Mr. Mohammed Adamu.
FHC/ABJ/CS/463/2020, are the Clerk of the National Assembly, the Clerk of the
House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Femi
Gbajabiamila, the Attorney-General of the Federation, Mr. Abubakar Malami, and
the Inspector-General of Police, Mr. Mohammed Adamu.
Although the case was put before the
court on Wednesday, the clerks of the National Assembly and the House of
Representatives, as well as the AGF, had no legal representation.
court on Wednesday, the clerks of the National Assembly and the House of
Representatives, as well as the AGF, had no legal representation.
Likewise, even though the Speaker of
the House of Reps, Gbajabiamila, who was the 3rd Respondent and sponsor of the
bill, was represented by his lawyer, Dr. Kayode Ajulo, he informed the court
that he had not served with the bill.
the House of Reps, Gbajabiamila, who was the 3rd Respondent and sponsor of the
bill, was represented by his lawyer, Dr. Kayode Ajulo, he informed the court
that he had not served with the bill.
Justice Ojukwu, therefore, directed
the plaintiff, through his lawyer, Mr. Nkem Okoro, to ensure that all the
Respondents were duly served with all the court processes before the adjourned
date. The IGP who was listed as the 5th Respondent in the suit was represented
by his lawyer, Mr. Kehinde Oluwole.
the plaintiff, through his lawyer, Mr. Nkem Okoro, to ensure that all the
Respondents were duly served with all the court processes before the adjourned
date. The IGP who was listed as the 5th Respondent in the suit was represented
by his lawyer, Mr. Kehinde Oluwole.
In the meantime, the efforts of the
counsel to the plaintiff to persuade the court to issue an interim order
restraining the Respondents from taking any action with respect to the Bill,
pending the determination of the suit, have failed.
counsel to the plaintiff to persuade the court to issue an interim order
restraining the Respondents from taking any action with respect to the Bill,
pending the determination of the suit, have failed.
Justice Ojukwu stressed that the
condition precedent that would empower the court to issue such an ex-parte
injunction had not been met by the plaintiff since he had failed to serve all
of them.
condition precedent that would empower the court to issue such an ex-parte
injunction had not been met by the plaintiff since he had failed to serve all
of them.
Melaye, who hitherto represented Kogi
West in the Senate, had in the suit he filed on May 5, contended that several
portions of the proposed law which is intended to amend the Quarantine Act of
1926, are unconstitutional, illegal, and wrongful, saying they would amount to
flagrant abuse of his fundamental rights.
West in the Senate, had in the suit he filed on May 5, contended that several
portions of the proposed law which is intended to amend the Quarantine Act of
1926, are unconstitutional, illegal, and wrongful, saying they would amount to
flagrant abuse of his fundamental rights.
He told the court that the Bill which
was introduced by the Speaker, passed the 1st and 2nd reading on April 28,
“with unimaginable speed, despite the lockdown and there is no known emergency
which its provisions are intended to cure, in view of the fact that the Federal
Government is already relaxing the lockdown”.
was introduced by the Speaker, passed the 1st and 2nd reading on April 28,
“with unimaginable speed, despite the lockdown and there is no known emergency
which its provisions are intended to cure, in view of the fact that the Federal
Government is already relaxing the lockdown”.
He is among other things, praying the
court to declare, “that sections 3(8),5(3),6,8,13,15,16,17,19,23,30 and 47 of
the Control of Infectious Diseases Bill 2020, which is currently being debated
at the floor of the House of Representatives of the National Assembly, is in
breach, and or is likely to breach the fundamental rights of the Applicant as
provided for in sections 33, 34,35,37,38 and 40 of the Constitution of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and Articles 4, 6, 7,10,11,12 and
14 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights Ratification and
Enforcement) Act Cap A9 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, Articles
2(3),7,8,9,12,17,21 and 22 of The International Covenant On Civil And Political
Rights,1976, Articles 3,5,8,9,10,12,13,17 and 20 Of the Universal Declaration
Of Human Rights,1948 and are therefore unconstitutional, illegal, wrongful and
amount to flagrant abuse of the fundamental rights of the Applicant.”
court to declare, “that sections 3(8),5(3),6,8,13,15,16,17,19,23,30 and 47 of
the Control of Infectious Diseases Bill 2020, which is currently being debated
at the floor of the House of Representatives of the National Assembly, is in
breach, and or is likely to breach the fundamental rights of the Applicant as
provided for in sections 33, 34,35,37,38 and 40 of the Constitution of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and Articles 4, 6, 7,10,11,12 and
14 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights Ratification and
Enforcement) Act Cap A9 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, Articles
2(3),7,8,9,12,17,21 and 22 of The International Covenant On Civil And Political
Rights,1976, Articles 3,5,8,9,10,12,13,17 and 20 Of the Universal Declaration
Of Human Rights,1948 and are therefore unconstitutional, illegal, wrongful and
amount to flagrant abuse of the fundamental rights of the Applicant.”
Also an order of injunction
restraining the Respondents, whether on their own behalf, their agents, employees,
servants, private persons and others, from interfering with or pursuing further
discussions with respect to sections 3(8),5(3),6,8,13,15,16,17,19,23,30 and 47
of the Infectious Diseases Control Bill 2020, which breaches provisions or is
likely to infringe the Act Cap A9 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004,
Articles 2(3),7,8,9,12,17,21 and 22 of The International Covenant On Civil And
Political Rights,1976, Articles 3,5,8,9,10,12,13,17 and 20 Of the Universal
Declaration Of Human Rights,1948.
restraining the Respondents, whether on their own behalf, their agents, employees,
servants, private persons and others, from interfering with or pursuing further
discussions with respect to sections 3(8),5(3),6,8,13,15,16,17,19,23,30 and 47
of the Infectious Diseases Control Bill 2020, which breaches provisions or is
likely to infringe the Act Cap A9 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004,
Articles 2(3),7,8,9,12,17,21 and 22 of The International Covenant On Civil And
Political Rights,1976, Articles 3,5,8,9,10,12,13,17 and 20 Of the Universal
Declaration Of Human Rights,1948.
