By Temitope Adedeji
THE Presidential candidate of the Labour party Peter Obi has been summoned to appear before a Lagos State High Court over a planned rally at Lekki toll gate on October 1, 2022, ahead of next year’s election.
Lagos State Governor, Babajide Sanwo Olu, the Inspector General of Police, Alkali Baba and seven others were also asked to make appearances.
A document exclusively made available to our reporter yesterday evening by one of the plaintiffs said the purpose was to prevent the occurrence of the 2020 #Endsars protest in Lagos.
According to the suit, Obi, Labour Party, Sanwo-Olu and others did not put the peace and lives of Nigerians at heart considering the occurrence and the memory of the last mass action.
The suit was said to have been filed by some concerned citizens who are lawyers basically to prevent further breakdown of law and order in Lagos State under the guise of the rally.
A section of the suit reads ” everywhere is tensed and care must be taken with the manner with which political parties and their supporters go about promoting their candidates”
” On the 10th of August, 2022 the supporters of Obi and Labour Party put up a well-circulated publication to undertake a rally on the 1st of October, 2022 titled #obidatti forward ever rally” to converge at Lekki toll gate which has already been tagged #Endsars arcade by some people.
” We have sued the Labour Party and its candidates, Lagos State government, LCC and Security agencies to ensure the planned rally does not hold as same may cause another crisis in the state.
“We are seeking a restraining order of a court in this regard”.
The suit dated September 9, was titled “Originating Summons brought pursuant to section 6(6)(1) of the constitution of the Federal Republic Of Nigeria 1999 (As Amended) section 4 of the Police Act 2020 section (3) of the National Security Agencies Act cap N74 section 1(3) of the Terrorism ( prevention & Prohibition Act 2022 orders 3, rule 6, of the Federal High Court ( civil procedure ) rules 2019 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court”.
.
