Human Rights Activist sues FG, others over N100bn to Miyetti Allah




Human rights lawyer, Malcolm Omirhobo, on Thursday, approached a  Federal High Court, Abuja, to stop the Federal Government from disbursing the N100bn promised Miyetti Allah group by the Interior Ministry.

Omirhobo, who sued in the name of the board of incorporated trustees of Malcom Omirhobo foundation, in an ex-parte, urged the court to hold that the Federal Government or the Ministry of Interior, has no to dole out such money without recourse to budgetary allocation.

In the suit No. 506/2019 which came in form originating summon, filed before Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu, Omirhobo said that kind of money could go a long way in building schools, roads or even distributed among indigent Nigerians to start up small businesses.

The suit, which has the Federal Government of Nigeria, the Attorney General of Nigeria, the Minister of Interior, the National Assembly, the Inspector General of Police and Accountant General of Nigeria as the 1st to 7th respondents, was brought in pursuant to Order 3 rules 6, 7, and 9 of the High Court (Civil Procedure, Rules 2009.                                                                                                                   The plaintiff wants the court to determine the following questions: “Whether by the interpretation and/ or construction of Section 1 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (As Amended ), the Nigerian Constitution  is the ground norm of Nigeria and its provisions have  binding force on all authorities and persons throughout Nigeria including the Defendants?

“Whether by the interpretation and/ or construction of Section  80(1) (2 ) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria  (As Amended ), all revenues or money raised or received by the Federation shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund of the Federation. 

“Whether by the interpretation and/ or construction of Section 80 (2), (3) and (4) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (As Amended), monies could be withdrawn from the Consolidated Fund of the Federation where such is not authorized by an Appropriation Act or Supplementary Act by the 5th Defendant and without compliance with the provisions of Nigeria Constitution? 

“Whether by the combined interpretation and/ or construction of Sections 1 (1) Section 80(1) (2), (4), 81 (1), 83 (1) (2) of the Constitution,” among others.

After determining the above questions, Omirhobo wants the court declare “that by the interpretation and/ or construction of Section 80(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (As Amended), all revenues or money raised or received by the Federation (not being revenues or other monies payable under the Constitution or any Act of the 5th Defendant, into any other Public Fund of the Federation established for a specific purpose) shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund of the Federation. 

Also, another suit No ..564/2019, Omirhobo in the originating summons Seek to restrain the revocation of Shot Gun License), asked the court for an interlocutory injunction, to halt the revocation of gun Incense by President Buhari, arguing that the President has no such power under the Constitution.

He added that it was in public interest that Nigerians should hold on to their guns to defend themselves.

“He should come and tell the court why he is withdrawing the licences. Does he want to render Nigerians defenceless ? As a matter of fact, every Nigerian should be made to carry gun,” Omirhobo argued.

The matters came up for hearing of the ex-parte applications. The Court ruled that due to the weighty nature of the averments, the Defendants be put on Notice to Show Cause why the releifs sought should not be granted.

But in a short ruling, Justice Ijeoma, held that the exhibits contained in the averrments in both suits are weighty, hence the need to hear from the defendant.

She held that Nigeria’s resources cannot be allotted unnecessarily, hence there was need for the Federal Government to come to court and explain why the plaintiff’s application should not be granted

“The court find it necessary to put the defendant on notice, including the substantive suit, asking the defendant to come and show cause why the application should not be granted”, the court held.

On the revocation of gun licences, Ijeoma said for the interest of justice, the must be held.

Consequently, she adjourned the two suits to September 30, 2019 for hearing of the motion on notice and originating summons.

Share the news, pls

Matched content



Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*