The federal government appeared before an Abuja federal high court on Monday to arraign ten #EndBadGovernance protestors who had been detained in Abuja, Kaduna, Kano, and Gombe.
Under heavy guard, the defendants were taken before the judge on charges of treasonable crime, which carries a death sentence, and allegations of a “plan to destabilize Nigeria.”
In entering their pleas, the defendants pled not guilty to each of the six counts brought against them before Justice Emeka Nwite, the presiding judge.
Adeyemi Abiodun Abayomi (also known as Yomi), Suleiman Yakubu, Comrade Opaluwa Eleojo Simeon, Michael Tobiloba Adaramoye (also known as Lenin), Buhari Lawal, Mosiu Sadiq, Bashir Bello (also known as Murtala), Nuradeen Khamis, and Abdulsalam Zubairu are the defendants.
The demonstrators who were detained objected to the court order allowing for their arrest and custody, claiming President Bola Tinubu lacked the authority to make the arrests.
The demonstrators challenged the August 22, 2024, Federal High Court ruling issued by Justice Emeka Nwite, which allowed the Inspector General of Police to remand them for 60 days until the conclusion of the inquiry into their case. The suit was filed under the file number FHC/ABJ/CS/1233/2024.
The demonstrators argued that “protest is a right and in fact, the president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Asiwaju Ahmed Bola Tinubu, had led protests in the past without being harassed, detained, or remanded” in an affidavit submitted before Paul Ochayi.
They argued that their right to life, human dignity, health, and freedom of movement had all been infringed by the police without cause and were threatened by the acts of the security forces.
In a move on notice filed on August 26, Comrade Opaluwa Eleojo and 48 other applicants sued the Inspector General of Police as the only respondent in the case. Femi Falana, a human rights attorney, led the group of attorneys defending the applicants.
In the motion on notice that our reporter was able to get on Saturday, the applicants contended that the approval of their remand was based on a motion ex parte that concealed and misrepresented important information.
They asked the court to set aside, discharge, or rescind the exparte order that authorized their remand in prison for 60 days, arguing that it constituted a flagrant misuse of the legal process.
On a final note, they asked the court to issue an order granting them bail.
