By Ikechukwu Nnochiri

The Islamic Movement of Nigeria, IMN, on Friday, approached the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court, asking it to set-aside the exparte order it granted  the Federal Government to proscribe it as a terrorist organization.

El-Zakzaky

Niger: Court sacks Umaru, orders INEC to recognise Musa as APC candidate(Opens in a new browser tab)

The IMN otherwise known as the Shi’ite sect, in the suit it filed through its lead counsel and human rights activist, Mr. Femi Falana, SAN, insisted that the order FG obtained against it on July 26, was illegal, unconstitutional and in abuse of the judicial procedure.

It will be recalled that Justice Evelyn Maha of the High Court had on the strength of an application that was filed with the office of the Attorney General of the Federation, declared activities of the IMN in any part of Nigeria illegal, branding operations of the group as “acts of terrorism and illegality.”

The court restrained any person or group of persons from participating in any form of activities involving or concerning the group “under any name or platform”, in Nigeria.

It directed the Attorney-General of the Federation who was represented by the Solicitor General of the Federation, Mr.  Dayo Apata, to gazette the proscription order, a directive FG had since complied with.

However, in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/876/2019, the IMN, contended that Justice Maha who is sitting as the vacation judge, made the orders without jurisdiction, saying it was made against “a non juristic body”.

In the suit it predicated on Order 26 Rules 6(1), 9 and 10 of the Federal High Court Rules 2019, section 6(6) (1) (4), sections 36, 39 and 40 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, the IMN, said it was denied fair hearing by the court.

It maintained that the proscription order was “anchored on misrepresentation of material facts and based on suppression of material facts”, by the government.

“The said order of the Honorable Court breached the fundamental right of all members of the Respondent/Applicant, the Islamic Movement in Nigeria to fair hearing guaranteed by Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Laws of the Federation, 2004 in that no fair hearing was granted the applicant/respondent before the order was made.

“The order ex parte granted by this Honourable Court has violated the fundamental right of members of the Respondent to freedom of thought, conscience and religion guaranteed by Section 38 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as Amended.

“The order  ex parte granted by this Honourable Court has breached the fundamental right of the members of the Respondent to freedom of assembly and association guaranteed by Section of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as Amended.

“There was no urgency warranting the grant of the order ex parte. No Motion-on-Notice was filed together with the Motion Ex Parte.

“The Ex Parte order made by the Honorable Court has determined the fundamental right of the Respondent/Applicant without affording it fair hearing.

Vanguard