Lawyer seeks court order to remove IGP from office

A Lagos-based legal practitioner, Ademola Odusote has asked the Federal High Court, Abuja for an order directing the Attorney General of the Federation to advise the President to remove the Inspector General of Police from office for failure to enforce court orders.

This is contained in a suit filed on Wednesday at the Federal High Court Abuja by John Obor Esq on behalf of Odusote against the Inspector General of Police, Ibrahim Idris, the Nigerian Police Force and the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice.

The suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1157/17, was brought pursuant to Order 3 rules 6 and 9 of the Federal High Court civil procedure rules 2009.

The plaintiff who expressed deep concern over the failure of the IGP to honour and enforce court orders posed five questions for the court to determine.

“Whether by the true interpretation of Section 287(3) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria ( as amended) the 1st (IGP), 2nd (Ibrahim Idris) and 3rd (Police) defendants respectively are not under absolute legal obligation to obey and enforce court judgements in any part of Nigeria.

“Whether considering the continuous and flagrant disobedience of court judgements by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants, the 2nd defendant is still a fit and proper person to remain in office as the Inspector General of Police and Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the Federation”

“Whether the 4th defendant being the Chief Law Officer of the Federation is not under legal obligation to advise
President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to remove the 2nd defendant from office as the Inspector General of Police on the grounds that the 2nd defendant is in continuous breach of provisions of section 287 (3) of the 1999 Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) thereby posing immense threat to the sustenance of our democracy.

Whether considering the continuous and flagrant disobedience of court judgements by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants, the 2nd defendant is still a fit and proper person to remain in office as the Inspector General of Police and Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the Federation

Whether the 4th defendant being the Chief Law Officer of the Federation is not under legal obligation to advise President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to remove the 2nd defendant from office as the Inspector General of Police on the grounds that the 2nd defendant is in continuous breach of provisions of section 287 (3) of the 1999 Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) thereby posing immense threat to the sustenance of our democracy.

Upon the determination of the questions, the plaintiff is seeking an order compelling the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants to do equity by forthwith obeying and enforcing all subsisting court judgements won against them, particularly the judgment delivered in suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/176/2017 between the Incorporated Trustees of Peace Corps of Nigeria & 49 others Vs. Nigeria Police Force & 5 others.

“An order directing the 4th defendant being the Chief Law Officer of the Federation to advise the President to remove the 2nd defendant from office as the Inspector General of Police on the grounds that the 2nd defendant is in continuous breach of the provisions of Section 287 (3) of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) thereby posing immense threat to the sustenance of our democracy.

“A declaration that by a true interpretation of Section 287 (3) of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) the action of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants by continuously and flagrantly disobeying and refusing to enforce court judgements, particularly the judgment delivered on 9th November, 2017, by Justice Gabriel Kolawole in suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/176/2017 between the Incorporated Trustees of Peace Corps of Nigeria & 49 others Vs Nigeria Police Force and 5 others is tantamount to circumventing the law as well as undermining due administration of justice, independence, authority and powers of the judiciary.
“A declaration that it is inequitable to hear the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants in any competent court in Nigeria
being that they have refused to obey and enforce several court judgements, as our courts are courts of law and equity and he who wants equity must do equity.

“A declaration that by the true interpretation of section 287 (3) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) the action of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants by refusing to obey and enforce court judgements is contemptuous enough to warrant this Honourable Court to preclude them from initiating and or continuing legal proceedings before any court of law in Nigeria.
The case is yet to be assigned to a judge.

Andrew Orolua. Abuja.