Also restrained from detaining the ex-governor or taking any such action include the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission and the Department of State Services.
The three agencies which received the restraining order of the court were the 1st to 3rd defendants in the suit filed by Yari through his lawyers.
Ruling in an ex-parte motion moved by Michael Aondokaa on Yari’s behalf, Justice Donatus Okorowo, ordered the respondents to show cause in the next adjourned date on why the prayers sought on the motion ex-parte should not be granted
“The respondents are however restrained from detaining the applicant until the return date for the order to show cause,” he ruled.
In an expert motion marked: FHC/ANJ/CS/785/23, Yari had prayed the court for an order restraining the respondents and their officials from arresting him to prevent him from participating in the proclamation of the 10th Senate by the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on June 13.
Yari, who gave 15 grounds on why the application should be granted, averred that he was desirous of contesting the position of the President of the Senate of the 10th National Assembly in accordance with the 1999 Constitution (as amended), and pursuant to the Senate Standing Orders p2022 as (amended).
He alleged that some members of his political party – the All Progressives Congress had resorted to using the respondents and their agents to harass and threaten to arrest him on trumped-up charges for the period leading to the first sitting of the Senate when nominations and election of presiding officers shall be constituted.
“The respondents and their agents have threatened to violate the applicant’s rights as enshrined in the constitution by unlawfully threatening to arrest and detain the applicant.
“The respondents and their agents are mandated to operate within the ambit of their establishment laws, and to respect the fundamental human rights of the Applicant as enshrined in the constitution,” he said.
Yari said if the order was not given, his rights would have been breached by the respondents.
The Justice consequently adjourned the matter till June 8 for the respondents to show cause.
