Lawyer Challenging IGP’s Tenure Extension Asks Court To Dismiss Objections To Suit

A lawyer and plaintiff, Maxwell Opara, has approached the
Federal High Court, Abuja, to sustain the suit challenging the
tenure extension of the Inspector-General of Police, Mohammed
Adamu, who is said to be due to have retired and handed over.

Opara, through his lawyer, Ugochukwu Ezekiel, in a “written
submission in opposition to the notice of preliminary objection
file by the second respondent – the IGP” dated March 11, 2021,
asked the court to hear the suit and determine the validity of
Adamu’s tenure extension.

The suit challenging Adamu’s tenure extension had been filed
before the FHC, Abuja, under suit number, FHC/ABJ/CS/106/2021, with
Opara as the plaintiff while the four respondents are the
President, the IGP, the Attorney General and Minister of Justice,
Abubakar Malami, and the Nigeria Police Council.

But on March 8, Adamu, the second respondent, through his
lawyer, had filed a notice of preliminary objection of four
grounds, wherein the following issues were raised.

“One; that the plaintiff/respondent lacks the requisite locus
standi to file this suit. Two; the suit is incompetent as proper
parties are not before the court. Three; the plaintiff failed to
comply with Order 3 Rule 9 (2) d. of the Federal High Court (Civil
Procedure Rules) 2019. Four; the court lacks jurisdiction because
the matter before the court relates to employment,” Adamu’s lawyer
had said.

Our correspondent learnt on Monday that the plaintiff’s lawyer,
however, filed a counter-affidavit, asking the court to sustain the
suit and bring forward a document of the “written submission in
opposition to the notice of preliminary objection file by the
second respondent – the IGP.”

The document partly reads, “The plaintiff/respondent opposes the
preliminary objection on the grounds that they are unfounded and
ought to be dismissed with substantive cost.

“On issue one of locus standi, my Lord, the locus standi has
been defined in plethora of authorities as the right of a party to
be heard by a court or tribunal. At this stage, the likelihood of
the success or otherwise of the plaintiff is not considered but
whether such plaintiff has the requisite right or interest to
institute the action.

“We humbly submit that in matters that border on public interest
litigation or interpretation of the constitution, as in this case,
the plaintiff is only required to show that he is a taxpayer and a
Nigerian citizen and then he will be fully clothed with the
requisite locus standi to bring and maintain an action.

“My Lord, all the cases cited by the learned senior counsel for
the second respondent and applicant are cases that do not involve
the interpretation of the constitution and they are not applicable
in this case.

“A cursory look at the originating summons, the questions posed
for the determination of this court and the reliefs sought will
show that what the plaintiff is seeking is interpretation of the
sections 215,216 of the constitution of the federal republic of
Nigeria, 1999 as amended and sections 7 (2), (6), and 18 (8) of the
Police Act, 2020, as it affects the executive decision and
administrative action of the respondents. The court clearly has the
powers to the exclusion of any other court to interpret the
constitution as it affects the action of the federal government led
by the first respondent or any of its agencies.

“We urge the court to dismiss the notice of preliminary
objection for being misleading and totally lacking in merit on the
following grounds. One; the plaintiff/respondent is clothed with
the requisite locus standi to institute and maintain this action.
Two, the suit is competent as proper parties are before the court.
Three, the court has jurisdiction because the plaintiff/respondent
aptly complied with the rules of court and this court has
jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter, not the National
Industrial court.”

A lawyer and plaintiff, Maxwell Opara, has approached the
Federal High Court, Abuja, to sustain the suit challenging the
tenure extension of the Inspector-General of Police, Mohammed
Adamu, who is said to be due to have retired and handed over.

Opara, through his lawyer, Ugochukwu Ezekiel, in a “written
submission in opposition to the notice of preliminary objection
file by the second respondent – the IGP” dated March 11, 2021,
asked the court to hear the suit and determine the validity of
Adamu’s tenure extension.

The suit challenging Adamu’s tenure extension had been filed
before the FHC, Abuja, under suit number, FHC/ABJ/CS/106/2021, with
Opara as the plaintiff while the four respondents are the
President, the IGP, the Attorney General and Minister of Justice,
Abubakar Malami, and the Nigeria Police Council.

But on March 8, Adamu, the second respondent, through his
lawyer, had filed a notice of preliminary objection of four
grounds, wherein the following issues were raised.

“One; that the plaintiff/respondent lacks the requisite locus
standi to file this suit. Two; the suit is incompetent as proper
parties are not before the court. Three; the plaintiff failed to
comply with Order 3 Rule 9 (2) d. of the Federal High Court (Civil
Procedure Rules) 2019. Four; the court lacks jurisdiction because
the matter before the court relates to employment,” Adamu’s lawyer
had said.

Our correspondent learnt on Monday that the plaintiff’s lawyer,
however, filed a counter-affidavit, asking the court to sustain the
suit and bring forward a document of the “written submission in
opposition to the notice of preliminary objection file by the
second respondent – the IGP.”

The document partly reads, “The plaintiff/respondent opposes the
preliminary objection on the grounds that they are unfounded and
ought to be dismissed with substantive cost.

“On issue one of locus standi, my Lord, the locus standi has
been defined in plethora of authorities as the right of a party to
be heard by a court or tribunal. At this stage, the likelihood of
the success or otherwise of the plaintiff is not considered but
whether such plaintiff has the requisite right or interest to
institute the action.

“We humbly submit that in matters that border on public interest
litigation or interpretation of the constitution, as in this case,
the plaintiff is only required to show that he is a taxpayer and a
Nigerian citizen and then he will be fully clothed with the
requisite locus standi to bring and maintain an action.

“My Lord, all the cases cited by the learned senior counsel for
the second respondent and applicant are cases that do not involve
the interpretation of the constitution and they are not applicable
in this case.

“A cursory look at the originating summons, the questions posed
for the determination of this court and the reliefs sought will
show that what the plaintiff is seeking is interpretation of the
sections 215,216 of the constitution of the federal republic of
Nigeria, 1999 as amended and sections 7 (2), (6), and 18 (8) of the
Police Act, 2020, as it affects the executive decision and
administrative action of the respondents. The court clearly has the
powers to the exclusion of any other court to interpret the
constitution as it affects the action of the federal government led
by the first respondent or any of its agencies.

“We urge the court to dismiss the notice of preliminary
objection for being misleading and totally lacking in merit on the
following grounds. One; the plaintiff/respondent is clothed with
the requisite locus standi to institute and maintain this action.
Two, the suit is competent as proper parties are before the court.
Three, the court has jurisdiction because the plaintiff/respondent
aptly complied with the rules of court and this court has
jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter, not the National
Industrial court.”