The Federal Government, on Monday, arraigned ten protesters linked to the #EndBadGovernance movement before a Federal High Court in Abuja. The protesters had been arrested in various states, including Abuja, Kaduna, Kano, and Gombe, and faced charges of treasonable felony, a serious offense that carries the death penalty in Nigeria. They were also accused of plotting to destabilize the country.
The defendants, who included Michael Tobiloba Adaramoye (also known as Lenin), Adeyemi Abiodun Abayomi (known as Yomi), Suleiman Yakubu, Comrade Opaluwa Eleojo Simeon, Angel Innocent, Buhari Lawal, Mosiu Sadiq, Bashir Bello (also known as Murtala), Nuradeen Khamis, and Abdulsalam Zubairu, were brought to the court under heavy security. As they took their pleas before the presiding judge, Justice Emeka Nwite, all ten defendants pleaded not guilty to the six charges filed against them.
The arrest and subsequent arraignment of these protesters have sparked significant controversy, particularly regarding the legal basis for their detention. The protesters challenged the court order that permitted their arrest and remand. They argued that President Bola Tinubu, who had previously led protests himself, had no right to authorize their arrest simply for exercising their constitutional right to protest.
In a suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1233/2024, the protesters contested the Federal High Court order issued on August 22, 2024, by Justice Emeka Nwite. This order granted the Inspector General of Police the authority to detain the protesters for 60 days, pending the conclusion of an investigation into their activities. The protesters, represented by an affidavit filed by one Paul Ochayi, insisted that peaceful protest is a fundamental right and pointed out the irony that President Tinubu had led similar demonstrations in the past without facing such repercussions.
The protesters’ legal team, led by renowned human rights lawyer Femi Falana, argued that the actions of the security agencies had violated their clients’ rights to life, dignity, health, and freedom of movement. They contended that these rights had been unjustly curtailed by the police, who failed to provide any valid justification for their actions.
The defendants, along with 48 others who have also joined the legal battle, have taken a stand against what they see as an infringement of their civil liberties. In a motion on notice filed on August 26, they named the Inspector General of Police as the sole respondent, seeking redress for the perceived violations of their fundamental rights.
