A Federal High Court sitting in Lagos under Justice Musa Kakaki has directed the Inspector-General of Police and the Lagos State Commissioner of Police to pay N10 million in damages to some #EndSARS protesters for the violation of their fundamental rights.
The presiding judge in his ruling in Thursday stated that the applicant/protesters were unjustly harassed and their constitutional rights were violated while participating in the fourth memorial rally held on October 20, 2024.
According to him, while it is unto law enforcement agencies to maintain order, it is not right for them to ever exercise such power when democracy is to be practiced and the rule of law.
Justice Kakaki admitted that the protesters were entitled to the constitutional right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association as contained in the Nigerian Constitution.
At the court, some of the protesters who pressed the charges include; Hassan Soweto, Uadiale Kingsley, Ilesanmi Kehinde, Osopale Adeseye, Olamilekan Sanusi, and Miss Osugba Blessing, others.
Some groups also joined the individuals in the application including the Education Rights Campaign, ERC, Take It Back Movement, TIBM, and Campaign for the Defence of Human Rights, CDHR.
In the suit, the protesters had claimed that the police officers fired live ammunition and tear gas on them, brutally beat some protesters and even arrested others during the procession.
According to them, the protesters who were arrested, were allegedly held in a Black Maria (mobile detention cell) for hours before their transfer to Panti Police Station, where they remained in custody for four hours before their release.
In an affidavit, Hassan Soweto, the first applicant and coordinator of the Education Rights Campaign who happens to be one of the then protesters who were tortured, stated that he and other protesters were beaten, tear-gassed, and unlawfully detained without charge.
In the lawsuit, the applicants through their legal representative, Joseph Opute said;
“The 1st – 3rd respondents deployed the full might of the police force against the applicants under the guise that they exercised their constitutionally guaranteed rights outside a location permitted by the 4th and 5th respondents.”
