President Bola Tinubu has urged the Federal High Court in Abuja to dismiss a lawsuit demanding his impeachment over alleged human rights violations, arguing that the National Assembly (NASS) cannot be compelled to act on such claims.
The case, filed by legal practitioner Olukoya Ogungbeje, is marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1334/2024 and names the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) as a co-defendant.
Ogungbeje is seeking six key reliefs from the court, including a declaration that the alleged suppression of peaceful protests by President Tinubu’s administration constitutes an impeachable offense. He cited incidents between August 1 and 10, 2024, where the government allegedly clamped down on peaceful demonstrators across the country, describing it as a violation of democratic principles.
He further argued that Section 143 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, empowers the National Assembly to initiate impeachment proceedings against the president for gross misconduct.
In response, President Tinubu and the Attorney-General, through their legal team led by Sanusi Musa (SAN) filed a preliminary objection challenging the case.
The defendants contended that Ogungbeje lacked the legal standing (locus standi) to bring the case forward, as he was not directly affected by any alleged rights violation.
They urged the court to dismiss the suit for being incompetent, arguing that it failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action. Additionally, they challenged the court’s jurisdiction, asserting that the case was not filed under the appropriate legal procedure.
The legal team outlined 18 reasons the case should be struck out, emphasizing that the plaintiff did not identify any specific individuals whose rights were violated. They maintained that under Section 46 of the 1999 Constitution, only a person whose rights have been breached can seek legal redress.
Supporting Tinubu’s position, a counter-affidavit was deposed by Gbemiga Oladimeji, a principal state counsel in the Federal Ministry of Justice. He dismissed the plaintiff’s allegations, insisting that the Tinubu administration has been committed to upholding democratic rights, including peaceful protests.
“I know for a fact that the protest conducted between August 1 and August 10, 2024, was peaceful, as there was a court order limiting the protesters to demonstrate within a confined location,” Oladimeji stated.
He further argued that security agencies were present not to suppress protesters but to prevent hoodlums from hijacking the demonstrations.
“The 1st defendant (President Tinubu) has always ensured that law and order are strictly maintained by security agencies and government institutions,” he added.
Dismissing claims of misconduct, Oladimeji stated: “Contrary to the deposition in paragraph 26 of the affidavit in support of the originating summons, I know as a fact that the 1st defendant has not violated any provision of his oath of office and allegiance. There has been no breach on his part that would warrant his impeachment from office as President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”
Following these submissions, Justice James Omotosho adjourned the case to March 4, 2025, allowing the plaintiff’s counsel, Stanley Okonmah, time to respond to the preliminary objection filed by President Tinubu and the Attorney-General of the Federation.
The ruling on that day will determine whether the case proceeds or is dismissed outright.
