It is unconstitutional, violation of court orders to confine protesters to Ojota, lawyer tells Lagos AG Pedro  

A lawyer Taiwo Adedeji, has faulted a statement credited to the Lagos State Attorney General, Lawal Pedro on protesters in the state to limit their protestation to the Gani Fawehinmi Park in Ojota.

 

Adedeji said Section 39(1) and 40 of the 1999 Constitution, and the plethora of judgments from the High Court to the Appeal Court make the statement of the Lagos Attorney General Illegal.

 

Adedeji’s statement reads in full:

 

 

“I have seen a statement circulating online and credited to the Lagos State Attorney General, Mr Lawal Pedro (SAN) insisting that protesters should restrict themselves to Gani Fawehinmi Park Ojota for the purposes of the planned October 1st nationwide protest against inhuman government economic policies.

 

“With the greatest respect for the learned Attorney General, he is wrong and very wrong. As the Attorney General, his duty is to advise the government to follow the path of legality and not the other way round. First and foremost, Section 39(1) of the 1999 Constitution states “Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference”.

 

“Going further, the same 1999 Constitution in section 40 Provides that “Every person shall be entitled to assemble freely and associate with other persons, and in particular, he may form or belong to any political party, trade union, or any other association for the protection of his interests.”

 

“The above underscores the illegality of any government policy to restrict the peaceful movements of protesters.

 

“The above sections of the Constitution have been given judicial affirmation in a plethora of cases. The one that readily comes to mind and is particularly relevant to this analysis is the case of Inspector General of Police v All Nigeria Peoples Party where the Court of Appeal upheld the earlier Federal High Court decision where it was held that the requirement for a Police permit to organise public protest is unconstitutional. Earlier the Federal High Court held that “The Public Order Act in so far as it requires the issuance of police permit as a condition precedent to the holding of rallies or processions, is inconsistent with Section 40 and the Constitution and to that extent, it is null and void ” This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal.

 

 

“The general slogans of Constitutional rights not being “absolute” which the learned Attorney General also made allusions to is with respect to him, begging the question. If the rights are not absolute, shall we then resort to illegality in an attempt to limit the ambit of the applicability of the rights?”