Justice Musa Kurya of a Federal High Court in Lagos, on Friday, entered judgment in favour of the Lagos State government in a suit by some deportees over breach of right.
The applicants, Rosemary Nathaniel, Friday Ndukwe, Grace Igbochi, Ugulori Tutua, Chinyere Nicholas, and Osondu Mbuto, had filed the suit on behalf of 77 others, seeking enforcement of their rights.
Joined as respondents in the suit are the Lagos State government, its Attorney General and the Commissioner of Police in the state.
They had sought a declaration that their arrest, remand and forceful deportation from Lagos to Onitsha, Anambra State, in 2012, on the grounds that they were non-indigenes of Lagos, was a violation of their personal liberty, and freedom of movement.
The applicants had prayed the court to declare that such action of the Lagos State government was a violation of sections 35, 41(1) and 42 of the constitution, and Articles 6,12, 2 and 28 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights.
They wanted the court to award damages in the sum of N2 billion against the Lagos State government and its agents, for breach of their rights.
The applicants had also sought an order of the court compelling the respondents to tender a published apology to them in at least three widely circulating national dailies.
Delivering the judgment on Friday, Justice Kurya held that there were conflicts in the affidavit evidence tendered by both parties, which conflict ought to be resolved by oral evidence.
He said that all efforts had been made to serve the respondents with the court processes, and the proof of service showed that they were duly served but were not represented in court.
“All efforts have been made to get the respondents served and from the proof of service, they have been served, consequent upon which they filed their counter affidavit.
“The respondent’s case is a complete denial of the facts and circumstances as put forward by the applicants.
“The respondents said in their affidavit that they did not deport the applicants to any place outside the territory of Lagos State at anytime.
“They said that in furtherance of state’s government’s policy to cater for the welfare of citizens irrespective of their origin, the applicants were rescued from different parts of Lagos State while they were begging for alms and engaging in other vices.
“The respondents said that those who could not provide details of their places of residence or business were taken to a rehabilitation centre at Majidun and given opportunity to acquire vocational skills.
“They said that it was three months after that their home state contacted the respondents and the applicants, who had successfully completed their programme, indicated their intention to rejoin their families.
“The respondents decided to assist the applicants in getting back to their families.
“It is trite law that where there are conflicts in affidavit evidence, it is normally resolved by oral evidence and applicants’ counsel did not call for such oral evidence.
“The court is, therefore, left with no option but to decide the matter on available evidence.
“I do not find any substance in the case of the applicants; there seems to be truth in the respondent’s averment.
“Consequently, judgment is entered in favour of the respondents against the applicants, with no cost awarded to either parties; this is my judgment”, Kurya said.
It is recalled that counsel to the applicants, Mr John Nwokwu, had argued that it was unlawful for Lagos State or any other state in the country to forcefully remove a citizen of Nigeria from its geographical boundary on account of indigeneship.
Nwokwu prayed the court to order Lagos State to go in search of the said deported Igbo indigenes and to return them to Lagos, in addition to an order restraining the respondents from further deporting them from the state.
But it was the argument of Lagos State, in their counter affidavit, that the applicants’ deportation to Onitsha was not done out of malice, but with the genuine intention of re-uniting them with their families.
Lagos State averred that the applicants were only assisted to re-join their families after pleading that they had no homes, relatives or business in the state.
Comments