The Federal High Court in Lagos on Friday fixed March 21 to hear a motion filed by the suspended Governor of Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Malam Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, seeking enforcement of his fundamental right.
Lamido had filed the suit through his counsel, Prof. Yemi Osibanjo (SAN), seeking an order restraining the police and officers of the State Security Service (SSS) from arresting, detaining or otherwise harassing him.
Joined as first to third respondents in the suit are: The Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Inspector General of Police (I-G) and the SSS.
When the case was mentioned on Friday, Justice Ibrahim Buba adjourned it to March 21 for hearing, following an application for adjournment moved by counsel to all the respondents.
Counsel to the AGF, Dr Oscar Nliam, holding the brief of Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN), informed the court that his office had just been briefed on the matter.
He told the court that they were yet to receive all the processes filed by the applicant, and therefore prayed the court for a short adjournment to enable him collate all processes.
Counsel representing the I-G, Mr Chukwu Agwu, on his part, informed the court that he was only notified last night by his boss from the Force Headquarters that the suit will be coming up in court.
He said that the second respondent was yet to receive the processes and also prayed the court for an adjournment to enable him look at the processes when they arrive.
In the same vein, counsel representing the SSS, Mr Ahmed Musa, also aligned himself with the submissions of his colleagues, adding that an adjournment will be to their favour especially as parties were still within time of filing.
Counsel representing the applicant, Mr Kola Awodehin (SAN),, did not object to the prayers for adjournment, but noted that the suit bordered on fundamental rights enforcement and ought to be dealt with expeditiously.
Justice Buba, however, in a short ruling, adjourned the case to March 21 for hearing.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) recalls that the court had on Feb. 21, granted an interim order of injunction, restraining the respondents from arresting, detaining or harassing the applicant, pending the determination of the motion on notice.
The interim order was sequel to an affidavit of urgency filed by the applicant on the same date.
The court had also granted the applicant leave to serve the originating summons and other accompanying court processes on the respondents.