A Division of the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja Monday fixed June 30th to deliver judgment in the suit filed by Senator Dino Melaye, challenging the passage of the infectious disease bill.
Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu fixed the date after taking arguments from parties in the case on Monday.
The bill, which is sponsored by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Femi Gbajabiamila and two other lawmakers – Pascal Obi and Tanko Sununu- seeks to empower the Federal Government to convert any property in the country, including private property, to isolation centres.
The bill also seeks to empower the government to, upon mere suspicion that a person is infected with an infectious disease, arrest and detain the person for as long as necessary, among others.
But in the filed suit, Melaye had, on May 5, claimed that the provisions of the Bill violate his fundamental rights, among which are rights to the dignity of person, personal liberty, right to private and family life, right to freedom of movement and right to own immovable property in Nigeria.
In his argument, Counsel to Melaye, Nkem Okoro told the court that the matter was for continuation of hearing, urging the court to grant all the reliefs sought by his client in the application.
But countering, Kayode Ajulo, Counsel to the Speaker of House of Representatives, Femi Gbajabiamila; lawyer to the AGF, M.L. Shiru and Kehinde Oluwole, who represented IGP, urged the court to strike out the matter for lacking merit.
They argued that the bill which was yet to become a law, could not have infringed on the plaintiff’s fundamental rights.
Arguing further, Shiru, who represented the AGF, stated that the country’s constitution provided for separation of powers among the three organs of government.
“And in explaining this doctrine of separation of powers my lord, we refer the honourable court to the case of AGF and Guardian Newspapers.
The citations are supplied in our preliminary objection my lord,” she said.
According to her, in view of the principle of separation of powers as applicable, we are quite aware that the honourable court can interfere in legislative processes when there is only defiance from the provisions of the constitution.
“However, this power can only be exercised in respect of enacted laws and not legislative bills and we urge your lordship to uphold our submissions in the preliminary objection and decline to grant the reliefs of the applicant,” she said.
She stressed that the National Assembly had the powers to make and amend laws as provided by the constitution.
The lawyer said although Melaye had laid emphasis on sections 6, 29, 30 and 47 of the proposed bill, she urged the court to “dismiss all the reliefs sought by the applicant on the provisions of the bill as vexatious and annoying.”
According to her, the application falls short of fundamental rights application.
“The applicant has not proved that the bill infringes on his fundamental rights.
“A bill is not a law yet and if it is not a law, how can it infringe on his right.
“Therefore, the application of the applicant should be discontented by the court,” Shiru said.
The lawyer asked the court to also award a cost against the applicant (Melaye) for bringing such application before the court.
