Sowore Asks Court to Vacate Detention Order

Detained convener of #RevolutionNow protests, Omoyele Sowore, has approached the Federal High Court, Abuja, for an order setting aside the exp arte order of the Court for which approved his detention by the Department of State Service( D SS) for a period of 45 days.

Justice Taiwo Taiwo had in a ruling on Thursday in an exparte application, ordered Sowore's detention for the said period to enable the D SS carry out and conclude its investigation of So wore on allegations of instigating the public and seeking a change of the present administration through unconstitutional.

But Sowore, in a Motion on Notice, brought pursuant to sections 6 (6) (B), 35 and 36(4) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended, section 293 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 and under the jurisdiction of the Court, is asking the court to vacate the order on the grounds that the order was made in violation of his full

The motion filed onAugust 9 by Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana was predicated on 18 grounds and supported by a 24 paragraphs affidavit de posed to by one Marshall Abubakar.

Part of the grounds are that, "The said order breached the fundamental right provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

"The detention of the respondent/applicant for an initial 4 days period before the grant of the ex-parte order is illegal by virtue of Section 35 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

"The order ex-parte brought pursuant to Section 27 (1) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2013 was obtained by the applicant/ respondent to legalise an illegal detention by the applicant/ respondent.

"The applicant/respondent dumped the video evidence in support of its application on the Honour able Court whilst the learned trial judge watched same in his chambers and not in the open court.

"The respondent/applicant was arrested on Saturday 3rd August, 2019 before the planned protest that took place on Monday 5th August, 2019 while he was already under the custody of the Applicant/ Respondent.

Other grounds canvassed by Falana was that the motion exparte was predicated on suppression and misrepresentation of material facts, adding that it constitutes a gross abuse of the process of court.