By Adenike Lawal
A Federal High Court in Abuja has thrown out a ₦500 million rights violation lawsuit filed by a group of scavengers, beggars, and petty traders against the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike, and other top government officials.
Delivering judgment on Friday, Justice James Omotosho dismissed the suit for lack of merit, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to provide credible evidence to support their claims.
The applicants, through their counsel Abba Hikima, had alleged mass arrests, harassment, extortion, and unlawful detention of vulnerable residents by security operatives.
They sued the FCT Minister, Inspector General of Police, Director-General of the DSS, Commandant-General of the NSCDC, Attorney-General of the Federation, and the Federal Government, seeking ₦500 million in damages.
Hikima argued that the government’s actions violated constitutional provisions, particularly Sections 34, 35, 41, and 42 of the 1999 Constitution.
He claimed the suit was a public interest case on behalf of oppressed groups in the capital.
However, the FCT administration, in a counter-affidavit deposed by Saidu Abdulkadir, described the plaintiffs as posing a security risk.
The legal team stated that some of those arrested were involved in criminal activities, including vandalism and providing intelligence to kidnappers.
The DSS also denied any involvement in joint raids or unlawful detentions, stating it operated strictly within the law.
The Attorney-General’s office similarly urged the court to dismiss the suit, citing the absence of substantiated evidence.
Justice Omotosho ruled that the plaintiffs relied solely on online news reports, which the court deemed inadmissible as hearsay.
He further observed that no specific security officer was named or proven to have committed rights violations.
“This court will not rely on newspaper reports to determine the truth of their contents,” the judge said, noting that the plaintiffs failed to establish any breach of their rights.
The suit was consequently dismissed, marking a significant setback for the applicants’ demand for redress.
