Detained #EndBadGovernance protesters have challenged the court order that allowed their arrest and detention, arguing that President Bola Tinubu has no right to detain them, especially as he was once a vocal protester himself.

The Guardian reports that Justice Emeka Nwite of a Federal High Court in Abuja had, on August 22, 2024, allowed the Inspector General of Police to detain them for 60 days pending an investigation.

But, in suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/1233/2024, filed on August 26, the protesters challenged the High Court order, arguing that the court order was based on suppression and misrepresentation of facts.

The applicants, led by Opaluwa Eleojo and 48 others, are suing the Inspector General of Police (IGP) through a legal team headed by human rights lawyer Femi Falana, SAN.

They also sought bail, arguing that their detention violated their fundamental human rights and that the trial judge had no jurisdiction to grant the ex-parte order.

“An Order of this Honourable court granting bail to the respondents/applicants pending the completion of investigation being conducted by the applicant/respondent on liberal terms,” they prayed the court.

The protesters maintained that “protest is a right” and that Tinubu himself had led protests in the past without facing such consequences. They contended that their detention was illegal and violated their rights to life, dignity, health, and freedom of movement.

In an affidavit by one of the protesters, Paul Ochayi, they argue that their constitutional rights, including the right to life, dignity, health, and freedom of movement, have been violated by the police. They maintain that their arrest and detention lack any lawful justification.

The applicants have also challenged the court’s jurisdiction to issue the detention order, claiming that the trial judge exceeded his powers under Section 299 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015. They argue that the detention order violated the fundamental human rights provisions of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, particularly regarding their detention beyond 48 hours without proper legal grounds.

They further state that, according to Section 293(1) of the ACJA, 2015, only a magistrate court, which does not have jurisdiction to try an offender, can remand a suspect under Section 299 of the same Act.

The applicants have also argued that the ex-parte order brought under Section 66(1) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2022, was improperly obtained to justify their illegal detention, as there was no evidence linking them to any terrorism activities or treasonable felonies.

The protesters continue to demand their immediate release and the restoration of their constitutional rights.