Twitter ban: ECOWAS court merges four suits against FG

The Community Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West
African States has made an order consolidating all the four cases
brought before it by different applicants against the Federal
Republic of Nigeria over the ban of the microblogging platform,
Twitter in Nigeria.

In a virtual court sitting held via Zoom on Friday, the ECOWAS
Court consolidated the cases marked as ECW/CCJ/APP/23/21,
ECW/CCJ/APP/29/21, ECW/CCJ/APP/24/21, and ECW/CCJ/APP/26/21.

These cases were filed by the Socio-Economic Rights and
Accountability Project and 196 others, Media Rights Agency and 8
others, Malcolm Omirhobo, and Patrick Elohor respectively.

In the suit against the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the
applicants sought to challenge the action of the respondent in
banning Twitter in the country.

The court made the order of consolidation after hearing from the
counsels to the four applicants and the counsel to the respondent,
who all agreed to the consolidation.

There were two groups before the court seeking to be admitted as
amicus curiae in the matter.

The first group was the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights
Organization and represented by their lawyer, Ikechukwu Uzoma.

Uzoma moved a motion before the court urging the court to admit
the group as an amicus curiae in the case.

The second group consisted of Amnesty International, Access Now,
and Electronic Frontier Foundation and was represented by their
lawyer, Deji Ajare.

Deji Ajare also moved a motion urging the court to admit these
organizations as amici curiae in the case.

The Counsel for the Federal Government, Abdullahi Abubabkar, was
opposed to the applications.

Abubakar stated that he had already filed a counter-affidavit to
the application of the first amicus curiae and was just receiving
the application of the second amici curiae.

He also stated that he would need time to verify if the second
amicus was a juristic person who could sue and be sued in
Nigeria.

SERAP’s lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN), in responding to the
objection by Abubakar, told the court that there is no law that
requires an organisation to be registered in Nigeria before they
can be an amicus curiae and that the groups were recognized as
International organizations before the ECOWAS Court, which was not
a national court.

The lawyer to Media Rights Agenda, Mojirayo Ogunlana-Nkanga,
adopted the submission of the learned silk and added that the
issues at stake in the matter were related to the internet and the
participation of other jurisdictions was therefore necessary.

The counsels to Malcolm Omirhobo and Patrick Elohor also aligned
themselves with the view of the learned silk.

The court after hearing the submissions of the parties granted
the applications and admitted the organizations as amici curiae in
the matter.

The court also adjourned to September 29 for a hearing to enable
all parties to organize themselves for trial.

The PUNCH reports that an amicus curiae is not a party in a
case. Rather, it is a friend of the court that assists the court by
offering expertise and insight that has bearing on the issues in
the case.

The Community Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West
African States has made an order consolidating all the four cases
brought before it by different applicants against the Federal
Republic of Nigeria over the ban of the microblogging platform,
Twitter in Nigeria.

In a virtual court sitting held via Zoom on Friday, the ECOWAS
Court consolidated the cases marked as ECW/CCJ/APP/23/21,
ECW/CCJ/APP/29/21, ECW/CCJ/APP/24/21, and ECW/CCJ/APP/26/21.

These cases were filed by the Socio-Economic Rights and
Accountability Project and 196 others, Media Rights Agency and 8
others, Malcolm Omirhobo, and Patrick Elohor respectively.

In the suit against the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the
applicants sought to challenge the action of the respondent in
banning Twitter in the country.

The court made the order of consolidation after hearing from the
counsels to the four applicants and the counsel to the respondent,
who all agreed to the consolidation.

There were two groups before the court seeking to be admitted as
amicus curiae in the matter.

The first group was the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights
Organization and represented by their lawyer, Ikechukwu Uzoma.

Uzoma moved a motion before the court urging the court to admit
the group as an amicus curiae in the case.

The second group consisted of Amnesty International, Access Now,
and Electronic Frontier Foundation and was represented by their
lawyer, Deji Ajare.

Deji Ajare also moved a motion urging the court to admit these
organizations as amici curiae in the case.

The Counsel for the Federal Government, Abdullahi Abubabkar, was
opposed to the applications.

Abubakar stated that he had already filed a counter-affidavit to
the application of the first amicus curiae and was just receiving
the application of the second amici curiae.

He also stated that he would need time to verify if the second
amicus was a juristic person who could sue and be sued in
Nigeria.

SERAP’s lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN), in responding to the
objection by Abubakar, told the court that there is no law that
requires an organisation to be registered in Nigeria before they
can be an amicus curiae and that the groups were recognized as
International organizations before the ECOWAS Court, which was not
a national court.

The lawyer to Media Rights Agenda, Mojirayo Ogunlana-Nkanga,
adopted the submission of the learned silk and added that the
issues at stake in the matter were related to the internet and the
participation of other jurisdictions was therefore necessary.

The counsels to Malcolm Omirhobo and Patrick Elohor also aligned
themselves with the view of the learned silk.

The court after hearing the submissions of the parties granted
the applications and admitted the organizations as amici curiae in
the matter.

The court also adjourned to September 29 for a hearing to enable
all parties to organize themselves for trial.

The PUNCH reports that an amicus curiae is not a party in a
case. Rather, it is a friend of the court that assists the court by
offering expertise and insight that has bearing on the issues in
the case.