Courts’ Restraining Orders on Protests: A Judicial Overreach Or Necessary Evil? – Okutepa, SAN, Reacts
A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Jibrin Samuel Okutepa, has expressed strong reservations about the restraining orders issued by some state High Courts during the recent #EndBadGovernance protests in Nigeria.
In the lead-up to the August 1, 2024, #EndBadGovernance protests in Nigeria, courts in various parts of the country imposed restrictions on protesters, limiting their freedom to assemble and express their grievances.
In Kwara State, a High Court ordered organizers of the protest to restrict themselves to the Metropolitan Square in Ilorin, citing concerns that the protest could degenerate into violence if left unchecked. This ruling was made on July 31, 2024, just a day before the scheduled protest.
Similarly, in Ogun State, a High Court ordered the sponsors of the #EndBadGovernanceInNigeria protests to limit their activities to four designated locations within the state. The court also restricted the protest to between 8 am and 5 pm, effectively curtailing the duration of the protest.
In Abuja, the Federal Capital Territory High Court restricted participants of the August 1 hardship protest to the MKO Abiola Stadium, Abuja. This ruling was made on the same day as the Kwara State and Ogun State court orders, indicating a coordinated effort to limit the scope and impact of the protests.
These court restrictions have raised concerns about the erosion of fundamental human rights, including the right to freedom of assembly and expression. Critics argue that such restrictions undermine the democratic process and stifle citizens’ ability to hold their leaders accountable.
Okutepa, in his reaction on his X handle argues that the courts lacked jurisdiction to entertain such cases, as no law grants them the power to restrict citizens’ fundamental rights, including the right to protest.
He emphasizes that jurisdiction is the “life wire of any litigation,” and without it, court decisions become nullities.
“The Nigerian government, which hardly respects courts and court orders, always resorts to getting orders from courts to legitimize its abuse of powers,” Okutepa notes.
He points out that Chapter 4 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees fundamental rights, including the right to protest, does not provide corresponding rights for the government or individuals to approach courts to stop the exercise of those rights.
Okutepa cites Section 40 of the Constitution, which states that “every person shall be entitled to assemble freely and associate with other persons,” and Section 46(1), which empowers High Courts to hear and determine applications related to fundamental rights enforcement.
He concludes that the courts’ restraining orders were a judicial infringement of the Constitution and urges the judiciary to enforce the Constitution rather than sabotage it.
Okutepa stresses that peace in Nigeria should not come at the expense of the rule of law and constitutional legitimacy.
In his words, “I think with respect that the duties of courts are to enforce the provisions of the Constitution and not to issue orders in sabotage of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution.”
