A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has dismissed a lawsuit filed against anti-hardship protesters for lacking of diligent prosecution.
Justice Peter Lifu struck out the suit after noting the absence of the 17 plaintiffs and their legal representatives, as well as the lack of representation for the 26 defendants.
The plaintiffs, representing the six geopolitical zones of Nigeria, had sought a court order to terminate the protest, alleging that their fundamental rights had been breached.
They claimed that the protesters had infringed on their rights to freedom of movement, human dignity, property ownership, economic development, and national peace and security.
The plaintiffs specifically mentioned states like Kano, Kaduna, and Jigawa, where they alleged that significant destruction of public and private properties had occurred.
They requested the court to compel the Director General of the DSS, Inspector General of Police, Chiefs of Army and Defence Staff, as well as the AGF, to enforce their fundamental rights by bringing the protesters to order.
However, despite the suit being scheduled for hearing, none of the plaintiffs were present in court, nor were they represented by legal counsel.
This lack of representation raised questions about the plaintiffs' commitment to pursuing the case.
Furthermore, the defendants, including the Take It Back movement, Nigerians against hunger, DSS, IGP, Chiefs of Army, and Defence Staff, were also without legal representation.
It was gathered that no excuses or explanations were offered to the court for their absence, which further reinforced the perception that the case was not being pursued diligently.
Justice Lifu concluded that the plaintiffs had lost interest in pursuing the case and subsequently struck it out.
"This suit is hereby struck out as it is clear that the plaintiffs in the suit have lost interest in going further with this case," he stated.
The lawsuit was in response to a ten-day nationwide protest staged by Nigerian youths between August 1 and 10 2024 to express their dissatisfaction with the country's economic downturn.
The protesters had demanded action from the government to address the economic hardship and insecurity faced by citizens.
The dismissal of the suit is seen as a victory for the protesters, who had argued that their right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression was being infringed upon by the lawsuit.
The court's decision reinforces the importance of diligent prosecution and the need for plaintiffs to demonstrate a genuine commitment to pursuing their cases.
