Two lawyers, Adekunle Augustine and Semion Akogwu, have dragged the Lagos State government, the state governor, Babajide Sanwo-Olu, and others before a Federal High Court in Lagos demanding the disbandment of the Judicial Panel of Inquiry and Restitution for Victims of SARS Related Abuses in Lagos State and Lekki Toll Gate Incident.
The plaintiffs prayed the court to disband the panel on the ground that the Lagos State governor, being a party in the matter, did not exercise his power in public interest by setting up the panel.
They asserted that the governor having declared that he called for troops that shot at the protesters has no right to also set up a panel to prove the shooting.
They said the state government caused the deployment of troops to Lekki Toll Gate, Lagos, where a large number of youths were gathered in peaceful protest against police brutality; and the troops fired several artillery weapons at the scene leading to various degrees of bodily injuries and alleged death of several people.
The plaintiffs therefore are praying the court to make a declaration that the Lagos State governor, being a party, cannot set up a panel to investigate itself and the outcome of the panel will be in favour of the state.
Apart from the judicial panel of inquiry and the governor of Lagos State, the chairman of the panel and the Attorney-General of the state are listed as defendants.
The chairman of the panel is listed as the 2nd respondent.
In the case dated November 11, 2020 and with suit number FHC/L/CS/1572/20, the plaintiffs, Augustine and Akogwu, through their counsel, Samuel Adama, seek the determination of the following questions:
“Whether having regards to section 36(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), Exhibits A and Exhibit B, the 2nd Defendant being an Agent/Appointee of the 1st Defendant can ensure fair hearing for the Plaintiffs under the auspices of the 3rd Defendant in a mater in which the 1st Defendant is a party?
“Whether having regards to section 5(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), Exhibits A and Exhibit B, the 1st Defendant validly exercised his powers in public interest by setting up the 3rd Defendant to investigate a matter in which the 1st Defendant himself is a party?
“Whether having regards to Exhibits A and Exhibit B, the 1st Defendant is a party to be investigated under the terms of reference for the 3rd Defendant in the discharge of its mandate?
“Whether the 4th Defendant being the Chief law officer of the State ought to act in public interest by advising the 1st Defendant against the setting up of the 3rd Defendant and ought to do all things legally possible to ensure fair hearing in the matter?”
Upon the determination of the questions, the plaintiffs also prayed the court for the following reliefs: “That having regards to section 36(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) together with Exhibits A and Exhibit B, the 2nd Defendant being an agent/appointee of the 1st defendant cannot ensure fair hearing for the plaintiffs under the auspices of the 3rd defendant in a matter in which the 1st defendant is a party.
“A declaration that having regards to section 36(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) together with Exhibits A and Exhibit B, the 1st Defendant, being a party in the matter, did not exercise his power in public interest by setting up the 3rd defendant.
“A declaration that the appointment of the 2nd Defendant and the setting up of the 3rd Defendant by the 1st Defendant is tantamount to making the 1st Defendant a Judge in his own cause and ipso facto breaches the Plaintiffs rights to fair hearing.”
They therefore prayed the court for an order disbanding the 3rd defendant and nullifying its proceedings and whatsoever actions taken thereby so far to give way for a credible and independent commission of inquiry to be set up by the Federal Government to take over the mandate of the 3rd defendant as contemplated by its establishment ab initio.
