The Abuja Division of the Federal High Court, on Thursday, awarded a N500 million in damages against Governor Yahaya Bello for violating the fundamental rights of Murtala Ajaka, the Social Democratic Party candidate in the November 11 governorship election in Kogi.
Justice Inyang Ekwo, in a judgment, also directed Mr Bello to tender a public apology to Mr Ajaka “for the gross and unwarranted violation” of his rights.
Mr Ekwo equally made an order directing the security agencies and their heads, listed as second to seventh respondents, to provide maximum security and ensure Mr Ajaka’s safety, including his property, within Abuja, Kogi and Nigeria before, during and after the governorship poll.
The judge further made “an order of injunction, restraining the security agencies from arresting/abducting, detaining and/or further harassing, intimidating, shooting/threatening the applicant’s life and properties.”
Mr Ajaka had, in the originating motion marked FHC/ABJ/CS/952/2023 dated and filed on July 11 by S.E. Aruwa, sought protection from the court. The SDP candidate sued Mr Bello, the police, the inspector general of police, the police commissioner in Kogi, the SSS, and the SSS director-general as first to sixth respondents, respectively.
The applicant also joined the director of SSS in Kogi, the NSCDC commandant-general, the chief of defence staff, the chief of army staff and the chief of naval staff as seventh to 11th respondents in the case.
Mr Ajaka said he firmly believed that as soon as the originating processes for the enforcement of his fundamental rights were served on the respondents, they would intensify efforts, albeit illegally, to force him to Kogi to be killed.
The politician said prior to this time, he had contested the Kogi governorship primary election on the platform of the All Progressives Congress (APC).
Mr Ajaka averred that to dissuade him from contesting the APC primary, the governor, who had announced his cousin brother, Usman Ododo, as his successor, pointedly demanded that he step down.
“He (Bello) further accompanied this demand with threats to taking my life on the failure of compliance,” he alleged, revealing that the threat forced him to seek an audience with then-President Muhammadu Buhari, requesting intervention and protection.
“The president, in response, requested that the applicant make a formal report to his official and relevant security agencies, which he did,” said Mr Ajaka.
“That after leaving the APC for the SDP, the applicant was still being threatened by the overt and covert acts of the 1st respondent (Bello). That the 1st respondent has co-opted the second to 11th respondents in threatening the right to life, liberty and association of the applicant,” Mr Ajaka alleged.
Mr Ajaka also alleged that on June 3, he left Abuja to pay a courtesy visit to the Ohimege of Koto at KotonKarifi. He said no sooner had he departed and was heading to Lokoja to pay a courtesy call at the palace of the Mai gari of Lokoja than his vehicle was shot at.
“In the midst of the confusion, the vehicle the applicant was travelling in was overtaken by a vehicle with the insignia of the government blocked the expressway, and then the 1st respondent (Bello) physically highlighted from the vehicle while ordering the men of the second and fifth respondents (police and SSS) to again open fire on the vehicle of the applicant and his motorcade.
“That several vehicles belonging to the applicant and his supporters were riddled with bullets and demobilised, two other vehicles branded with the applicant’s party (Social Democratic Party) logo were set ablaze by the men of the second and fifth respondents on the direct order of the first respondent,” said Mr Ajaka.
Mr Ajaka, who alleged that the deliberate attempt at assassinating him was made under the direct supervision of the governor, urged the court to grant his relief in the interest of justice.
Mr Bello, in his preliminary objection, sought an order striking out the suit for want of jurisdiction and another order setting aside the earlier order of the court made on July 13 for want of jurisdiction. Giving eight grounds for the objection, he said Mr Ajaka had filed the action against him, a sitting governor of Kogi.
He argued that the applicant did not sue him in his official capacity, as the attorney general of Kogi was not a party to the suit. Besides, he argued that the alleged breach of Ajaka’s fundamental right and all facts constituting the breach as per his affidavit in support of the originating motion occurred in Kogi, hence, the suit was incompetent, among others.
The Kogi governor denied issuing a death threat against Mr Ajaka, claiming that the SDP politician, in the company of thugs and armed militiamen, attacked and obstructed his convoy along the Abuja-Kogi Expressway, which prompted officers and men of the second to fifth respondents to repel the attacks from the criminals.
Mr Bello claimed that he did not get down from his vehicle, nor did he order any person to open fire on either Ajaka’s vehicle or any vehicle whatsoever, as the officers of the relevant security agencies attached to his convoy were charged with his security and carried out their duties within the ambit of the law.
Delivering the judgment, the judge said that none of the governor’s averments in the entire affidavit was specific.
“In other words, they are merely general averments. Furthermore, none of the averments specifically mentions the incident of June 3, 2023, and proffer a defence thereto,” stated the judge, holding that the Kogi governor’s counter-affidavit was so feeble and had failed to challenge Mr Ajaka’s case effectively.
The judge also said he found that the account of what transpired on June 3 by the governor’s Aide De Camp (ADC), DSP Iwanger Ifeoma Akaya, conflicted with the account of SP Elvis Aguebor, who was also at the scene.
“It is not hard to see that the first respondent was acting clever when he sent his aide-de-camp to make a report to the same police that acted in concert with him at the scene of the shooting after preventing the applicant (Ajaka) from entering Lokoja,” the judge noted.
“It is my opinion that it is in the attempt of the second, third and fourth respondents to make a case to cover up for the act of the first respondent and the officers of the second, third and fourth respondents that have caused the obvious inconsistencies in their evidence,” added the judge.
“It is my finding that the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh respondents violated the rights of the applicant as enshrined in Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution (as amended),” stated the judge. The case of the applicant succeeds on merit against the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh respondents in this case, and I so hold.”
The judge added, “In awarding damages in this case, I will take into account the trauma of the applicant of being shot at by those whose statutory duty is to protect the citizens, acting under the command of the first respondent (Bello) who is statutorily the chief security officer of a state for a cause that is manifestly unlawful but inhuman.
“I will also take into consideration the physical and mental anguish of the applicant when he stood in utter helplessness and watched the first respondent using his political might through the apparatus of the state for security and law enforcement to shoot and burn down the campaign vehicles of the applicant’s political party.
“I will further take into account the near-death experience of the applicant and the mental torture that comes with it when the vehicle in which he was was riddled with bullets from the guns that ought to have been used to protect him and other citizens. It must be understood that fundamental rights of all citizens are sacrosanct and unless as authorised by law, any action by which an unlawful breach thereof is successfully proved, will be determined to reflect the depth of condemnation by the court.”
The judge struck out the eighth, ninth, 10th, and 11th respondents in the case for having found no evidence implicating them in the incident of June 3 or any claim against them.
He declared that the unprovoked shooting at Mr Ajaka, his cars and his supporters by armed officers of the second to seventh respondents on June 3 was reprehensible and a gross violation of his right to life and the dignity of his human person.
(NAN)
