TRACKING___The Federal High Court, Abuja on Monday fixed June 30 to deliver judgment in the suit filed by Dino Melaye challenging the passage of the Infectious Diseases Bill
Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu fixed the date after taking arguments from parties in the case.
The bill, which is sponsored by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Femi Gbajabiamila and two other lawmakers, Rep. Pascal Obi and Rep. Tanko Sununu, seeks to empower the federal government to convert any property in the country, including private property to isolation centres.
The bill also seeks to empower the government to upon mere suspicion that a person is infected with an infectious disease, arrest and detain the person for as long as necessary, among others.
Melaye had on May 5, claimed that the provisions of the bill violate his fundamental rights, among which are rights to the dignity of person, personal liberty, right to private and family life, right to freedom of movement and right to own immovable property in Nigeria.
While the clerk of the National Assembly is the first respondent, the clerk of the House of Representatives, House speaker, attorney general of the federation and the inspector general of police are the second, third, fourth and fifth respondents respectively, in the suit.
Justice Ojukwu had on June 1, adjourned the matter until June 15, while advising parties to restrain themselves from actions that could jeopardise the suit.
Earlier, counsel to Melaye, Nkem Okoro told the court that the matter was for continuation of hearing and urged the court to grant all the reliefs sought by his client in the application.
However, counsel to Gbajabiamila Kayode Ajulo; lawyer to the justice minister, M.L. Shiru and Kehinde Oluwole, who represented the police chief, urged the court to strike out the matter for lack of merit.
They argued that a bill, which was yet to become a law, could not have infringed on the plaintiff’s fundamental rights.
Shiru, who represented the justice minister, stated that the country’s constitution provides for separation of powers among the three organs of government.
According to her, in view of the principle of separation of powers as applicable, it is a known fact that the court can interfere in legislative processes when there is only defiance from the provisions of the constitution.
“However, this power can only be exercised in respect of enacted laws and not legislative bills and we urge your lordship to uphold our submissions in the preliminary objection and decline to grant the reliefs of the applicant,” she remarked.
She stressed that the National Assembly had the powers to make and amend laws as provided by the constitution, but asserted that although Melaye laid emphasises on Sections 6, 29, 30 and 47 of the proposed bill, the court should dismiss the reliefs sought by the applicant as they are vexatious and annoying.
The lawyer asked the court to also award a cost against the applicant (Melaye) for bringing such application before the court.
