|
Listen to article
|
On Monday, the Federal High Court in Abuja ruled that 10 activists, who participated in a recent hunger protest, should be remanded in prison. This development has sparked interest in the ongoing discussion about public demonstrations and the limits of free expression.
Amnesty International has weighed in on the controversy, criticizing the Federal Government’s prosecution of the activists. The civil rights organization dismissed the charges as baseless and politically motivated, sparking further debate on the matter.
Justice Emeka Nwite has ruled that the 10 defendants, including expectant mother Angel Innocent, will remain in custody at Kuje and Suleja correctional facilities until September 11. The court will hear their bail applications on that date, determining whether they will be released pending trial.
The other defendants, apart from the pregnant Angel Innocent, are identified as: Michael Adaramoye (also known as Lenin), Adeyemi Abayomi, Suleiman Yakubu, Opaluwa Simon, Buhari Lawal, Mosiu Sadiq, Bashir Bello, Nuradeen Khakis, and Abdusalam Zubairu.
The judge gave the order shortly after the police arraigned the defendants on six counts, bordering on treason and conspiracy to incite mutiny with the intent to destabilise Nigeria.
In the charge, marked FHC/ABJ/CR/454/2024, the defendants were equally accused of levying war against the state to intimidate President Bola Tinubu by attacking and injuring police officers and burning police stations, a high court complex, the Nigerian Communications Commission complex, Kano printing press, Kano State Government House, and several other buildings.
The police told the court that the defendants acted contrary to and were liable to punishment under Section 97 of the Penal Code.
But when the charges were read to them, all the 10 defendants pleaded not guilty.
Their lawyers, took turns, to urge the court to admit them to bail.
Read also: NLC Pledges Unflinching Opposition To Endemic Suffering
Counsel for the 1st and 3rd defendants, Marshall Abubakar, argued that there was no provision in the Administration of Criminal Justice Act that warrants a written application for bail.
Insisting that his clients were mere protesters, Abubakar described the treason charges against them as bizarre.
“The protesters were merely exercising their rights. My Lord will also recall that the defendants have been in custody long before the said (remand) order was granted. In fact, some for 30 days and some for 28 days.
“We are applying under the fundamental legal footing, both judicial and statutory from the authorities, that this honourable court admits the 1st and 3rd defendants to bail. We urge Your Lordship to admit the defendants to bail in the most liberal terms.”
Counsel for the 9th defendant, Hamza Dantani, told the court that his client was seriously sick and suffering from asthma.
He said, “On behalf of the 9th defendant, we equally align ourselves with the submission of the defendants.
“The 9th defendant is seriously battling with ill health. He was granted administrative bail before he was rearrested. He is an asthmatic patient, and in the interest of justice, we pray Your Lordship to admit him to bail as he has never had any criminal record in the past; he will not jump bail if granted,” Dantani said.
Deji Adeyanju, representing the 6th, 7th, and 8th defendants, made an impassioned appeal to Justice Nwite, requesting that the court exercise its discretion and grant bail to his clients, who were merely exercising their fundamental right to peaceful assembly.
