Police attack on anti-Buhari protesters unconstitutional – Falana

Femi Falana(SAN)

Lawyer-turned rights activist, Femi Falana (SAN), on Monday described last week’s attack on anti-Buhari demonstrators as illegal and unconstitutional.
In a statement titled: “On duty of Police to provide security for all protesters” issued in Lagos, Falana said “by providing “adequate security” for the pro-Buhari demonstrators while harassing the anti –Buhari protesters,” the police had violated Section 42 of the Constitution which prohibited discrimination on grounds of political opinion.
“Since the role of the Nigeria Police Force has been limited to the provision of ‘adequate security’ for demonstrators the violent attack on the peaceful rally of the ‘Our Mumu Don Do’ group by the police in Abuja last week is completely illegal and unconstitutional,” he contended.
He asked the police to apologize to the members of “Our Mumu Don Do” group stressing that “the violent disruption of the anti-Buhari rally ought to have embarrassed President Buhari who had advised late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, in a similar situation, to step aside as he could no longer discharge the duties and functions of his office.”
Falana listed other protests in which President Buhari participated before becoming President to include that of November 23, 2014 in which he led All Progressive Congress (APC) leaders, including APC National Chairman, John Odigie-Oyegun and former Rivers State Governor, Chibuike Amaechi, thousands of party supporters on Boko Haram insurgence and another protest he led alongside the late Chief Odumegwu Ojukwu allegedly against the inefficiency of ex- President Olusegun Obasanjo’s administration.
The statement said: “On the 22nd day of September 2003 the police disrupted the rally convened by the defunct All Nigeria Peoples’ Party (ANPP) to protest the rigging of the 2003 general election. The police authorities justified the disruption by claiming that the organizers of the rally did not obtain a police permit. Completely aggrieved by the action of the police Gen. Mohammadu Buhari and other leaders of the ANPP instructed our law firm to sue the Inspector-General of Police to justify the legal validity of asking for police permit before protesting against the government.
“In a suit filed at the Federal High Court against the Inspector-General of Police the plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the provisions of the Public Order Act relating to police permit.
“In a well-considered judgment the learned trial judge, Chinyere J. held that police permit was inconsistent with sections 39 and 40 of the Constitution and Article 11 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights Act (Cap A9) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. The appeal filed against the judgment at the Court of Appeal by the police was dismissed. In affirming the decision of the lower court Olufunmilayo Adekeye J.C.A (as she then was) observed said “a rally or placard carrying demonstration has become a form of expression of views on current issues affecting government and the governed in a sovereign state. It is a trend recognized and deeply entrenched in the system of governance in civilized countries. It will not only be primitive but also retrogressive if Nigeria continues to require a pass to hold a rally. We must borrow a leaf from those who have trekked the rugged path of democracy and are now reaping the dividend of their experience.”
“In line with the epochal judgment of the Court of Appeal and the struggle for the expansion of the democratic space the National Assembly was compelled to amend the Electoral Act to facilitate the enjoyment of the fundamental right to freedoms of assembly and expression.
“Thus, section 94 (4) of the Electoral Amendment Act, 2015 stipulates that ‘Notwithstanding any provision in the Police Act, the Public Order and any regulation made thereunder or any other law to the contrary, the role of the Nigeria Police Force in political rallies, processions and meetings shall be limited to the provision of adequate security as provided in subsection 1 of this section.”


Source:The Nation