Justice Musa Kurya of a Federal High Court in Lagos, on Friday, entered
judgment in favour of the Lagos State government in a suit by some deportees
over breach of right.
The applicants, Rosemary Nathaniel, Friday Ndukwe, Grace Igbochi, Ugulori
Tutua, Chinyere Nicholas, and Osondu Mbuto, had filed the suit on behalf of 77
others, seeking enforcement of their rights.
Joined as respondents in the suit are the Lagos State government, its
Attorney General and the Commissioner of Police in the state.
They had sought a declaration that their arrest, remand and forceful
deportation from Lagos to Onitsha, Anambra State, in 2012, on the grounds
that they were non-indigenes of Lagos, was a violation of their personal
liberty, and freedom of movement.
The applicants had prayed the court to declare that such action of the Lagos
State government was a violation of sections 35, 41(1) and 42 of the
constitution, and Articles 6,12, 2 and 28 of the African Charter on Human and
People’s Rights.
They wanted the court to award damages in the sum of N2 billion against the
Lagos State government and its agents, for breach of their rights.
The applicants had also sought an order of the court compelling the
respondents to tender a published apology to them in at least three widely
circulating national dailies.
Delivering the judgment on Friday, Justice Kurya held that there were
conflicts in the affidavit evidence tendered by both parties, which conflict
ought to be resolved by oral evidence.
He said that all efforts had been made to serve the respondents with the
court processes, and the proof of service showed that they were duly served
but were not represented in court.
“All efforts have been made to get the respondents served and from the proof
of service, they have been served, consequent upon which they filed their
counter affidavit.
“The respondent’s case is a complete denial of the facts and circumstances as
put forward by the applicants.
“The respondents said in their affidavit that they did not deport the
applicants to any place outside the territory of Lagos State at anytime.
“They said that in furtherance of state’s government’s policy to cater for the
welfare of citizens irrespective of their origin, the applicants were rescued
from different parts of Lagos State while they were begging for alms and
engaging in other vices.
“The respondents said that those who could not provide details of their places
of residence or business were taken to a rehabilitation centre at Majidun and
given opportunity to acquire vocational skills.
“They said that it was three months after that their home state contacted the
respondents and the applicants, who had successfully completed their
programme, indicated their intention to rejoin their families.
“The respondents decided to assist the applicants in getting back to their
families.
“It is trite law that where there are conflicts in affidavit evidence, it is
normally resolved by oral evidence and applicants’ counsel did not call for such
oral evidence.
“The court is, therefore, left with no option but to decide the matter on
available evidence.
“I do not find any substance in the case of the applicants; there seems to be
truth in the respondent’s averment.
“Consequently, judgment is entered in favour of the respondents against the
applicants, with no cost awarded to either parties; this is my judgment,” Kurya
said.
It is recalled that counsel to the applicants, Mr John Nwokwu, had argued that
it was unlawful for Lagos State or any other state in the country to forcefully
remove a citizen of Nigeria from its geographical boundary on account of
indigeneship.
Nwokwu prayed the court to order Lagos State to go in search of the said
deported Igbo indigenes and to return them to Lagos, in addition to an order
restraining the respondents from further deporting them from the state.
But it was the argument of Lagos State, in their counter affidavit, that the
applicants’ deportation to Onitsha was not done out of malice, but with the
genuine intention of re-uniting them with their families.
Lagos State averred that the applicants were only assisted to re-join their
families after pleading that they had no homes, relatives or business in the
state.
Post a Comment