President Bola Tinubu has urged the Federal High Court in Abuja to dismiss a lawsuit seeking to compel the National Assembly to begin impeachment proceedings against him over alleged human rights violations.
The case, identified as FHC/ABJ/CS/1334/2024, was filed by legal practitioner Olukoya Ogungbeje.
In his lawsuit, which names the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, as the second defendant, the plaintiff is requesting six primary reliefs from the court.
He asked the court to declare that the alleged consistent suppression of peaceful protests by the Tinubu administration constitutes an impeachable offense.
The plaintiff specifically claimed that between August 1 and 10, 2024, security forces violently cracked down on peaceful demonstrators across the country—an action he argues qualifies as misconduct and a basis for impeachment.
According to him, Section 143 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) empowers the National Assembly to initiate impeachment proceedings against the president.
In response, both President Tinubu and the AGF jointly filed a preliminary objection, questioning the plaintiff’s locus standi (legal right) to file the lawsuit.
The defendants asked the court to dismiss the case for being incompetent, arguing that it fails to present a valid legal basis for judicial intervention.
Represented by a legal team led by Sanusi Musa, SAN, the President and AGF also challenged the court’s jurisdiction to hear the matter.
Additionally, the defendants sought “an order striking out this suit for being incompetent as this suit is not initiated by due process of law having been initiated under a wrong procedure.”
Citing 18 reasons for the lawsuit’s dismissal, Tinubu and the AGF argued that the plaintiff was acting on behalf of unnamed individuals without providing evidence of whose rights had been violated.
They pointed to Section 46 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which states that only those directly affected by a rights violation can approach the court for redress.
According to the defendants:
> “Pursuant to the provision of Section 46 (3), the Chief Justice of Nigeria has {brought into being the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009, which makes ample provision of the procedure to follow in filing an action with respect to a breach of the Fundamental Rights of any Nigerian.”
They further argued that the plaintiff’s claims related to the alleged violation of the 1999 Constitution by President Tinubu under Section 143 but failed to demonstrate any personal injury or constitutional breach.
In a counter affidavit filed by Gbemga Oladimeji, a Principal State Counsel in the Federal Ministry of Justice, the government rejected the allegations, insisting that Tinubu’s administration supports democracy.
He stated that the President has consistently allowed Nigerians to express their concerns and engage in peaceful demonstrations.
He further said:
> “I know for a fact that the protest conducted between 1st August 2024 and 10th August 2024 was peaceful, as there was a court order limiting the protesters to demonstrate within a confined location.”
Oladimeji asserted that security forces under Tinubu’s administration were present during the protests to protect demonstrators and prevent disruption by criminals.
> “I know as a fact that the 1st defendant has always ensured that law and order are adhered to strictly by the security agencies and institutions of the arm of government.
> “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 the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”
At the hearing on Monday, Justice James Omotosho adjourned the case until March 4 to allow plaintiff’s counsel, Stanley Okonmah, time to respond to the preliminary objection raised by Tinubu and the AGF.
