Court gives Senate 30 days to respond to The Nation’s suit

The Federal High Court in Lagos has directed the Senate and the National Assembly to respond to a suit by The Nation‘s Editor, Gbenga Omotoso, and a correspondent, Imam Bello, within 30 days.

Justice Mohammed Yunusa said the respondents should be given time to “enter appearance” before the plaintiffs’ motion for interlocutory injunction is determined.

He relied on Section 99 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act which says: “The period within which a defendant is required to answer before the court to the writ of summons shall be not less than 30 days after service of the writ has been effected…”

The plaintiffs’ counsel, Mr Wahab Shittu, informed the court that the respondents had been served with the order of injunction.

The order restrained the Senate from compelling the plaintiffs to appear before its Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions over a story.

According to the proof of service, the processes were received by the Senate President’s Office on September 1.

The first respondent, National Assembly, was earlier served on August 27 through its Office of the Deputy Clerk.

The bailiff, Mr Lambo Moshood, in an affidavit of service, stated that the Senate was served at about 12.01pm on September 1, and that it acknowledged receipt via an official stamp.

Justice Yunusa made the order following a motion ex-parte moved by Shittu.

The order is to subsist pending the hearing and determination of the plaintiffs’ motion for interlocutory injunction.

Should the motion for interlocutory injunction be granted, it will subsist pending hearing of the main suit, which seeks, among others, an order of perpetual injunction against the respondents.

Vintage Press Limited (publisher of The Nation), Omotoso and Bello are the applicants.

The Senate had, in an August 4 letter, invited Omotoso and Bello to appear before it unfailingly over the story: Motion: 22 APC Northern senators ‘working against Buhari’ published on July 30.

The Senate wrote again on August 11, threatening to invoke Section 89 (1) (D) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) to compel the applicants’ appearance.

Justice Yunusa granted an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents, whether by themselves, their members, committees or agents from summoning or directing the appearance of the applicants or any of their agents before any Senate Committee.

The court barred the lawmakers from requesting the applicants to produce any papers, notes or other documents in respect of the story.

The judge also restrained the respondents from issuing a warrant to compel the applicants’ attendance before the Senate Committee set up to investigate the publication.

Shittu, in a supporting affidavit to the motion ex-parte, said unless the respondents were restrained, there was a great likelihood of the breach or threatened breach of the applicants’ fundamental rights to receive and impart information as guaranteed by Section 22 and 39 of the Constitution, among others.

The applicants said the publication has not been officially disputed, nor has the National Assembly issued a rejoinder to the story or made a complaint over the publication.

According to them, the laws of libel and slander are available to anyone, including the Senate, who feels aggrieved by any offensive report.

Shittu said rather than stating their side to the story or denying it, the Senate wrote to the applicants directing them to compulsorily appear before the committee or risk being arrested through a bench warrant.

The lawyer said the applicants are seeking to enforce their fundamental human rights to personal liberty and freedom of expression.

He said the story, which is of national interest, was published based on “anonymous but informed sources” who cannot be disclosed to anyone in line with the ethics of journalism.

Besides, the lawyer said the Senate cannot compel the applicants to appear before it under Section 89 because they are not a government agency or part of the executive which it is empowered to investigate, but members of the Fourth Estate of the Realm whose functions are guaranteed by the Constitution.

“Section 89 of the 1999 Constitution does not derogate from the rights guaranteed to the applicants under Section 39. The invitation is intended to prevent the applicants from discharging their duties in the ordinary course of business,” Shittu said.

After listening to the submissions, Justice Yunusa held: “I have considered the processes filed and the constitutional provisions relied on. I hold the view that the application has merit and is hereby granted.”

Justice Yunusa adjourned to October 6 for definite hearing of the motion for interlocutory injunction.