IMN asks court to set aside proscription order

The Islamic Movement of Nigeria (IMN), yesterday, urged the Federal High Court, Abuja, to vacate its July 26 order, proscribing the Movement.

The federal government had on that date, pursuant to an ex parte application brought before the court, obtained an order proscribing the existence and activities of the Movement in any part of Nigeria under whatever form, either in groups or as individuals, by whatever names they are called or referred to.

But in an application dated August 2, IMN is seeking an order of court setting aside, discharging and/or vacating the ex parte order made on July 26 in the suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/876/2019 between the Attorney General of the Federation and IMN.

The respondent/applicant (IMN) averred that the court breached the fundamental right of all members of the Respondent/Applicant, IMN, to fair hearing guaranteed by Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Laws of the Federation, 2004, in that no fair hearing was granted the applicant/respondent before the order was made.

IMN also averred that the order ex parte granted by the court has violated the fundamental right of members of the Respondent to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion guaranteed by Section 38 of the constitution, as amended and that the order ex parte granted by the court has breached the fundamental right of the members of the Respondent to freedom of assembly and association guaranteed by Section of the constitution, as amended.

The group held that the court did not grant the declaration that the activities of IMN in any part of Nigeria amounts (sic) to acts of terrorism and illegality and that there was no urgency warranting the grant of the order ex parte and no Motion-on-Notice was filed together with the Motion Ex Parte.

It insisted: “The order made by the court has determined the fundamental right of the Respondent/Applicant without affording it fair hearing. No undertaking was made as to damages.

“The order was anchored on misrepresentation of material facts and based on suppression of material facts. The order constitutes a gross abuse of the process of this court.”