Sunday Igboho Floors Malami As Court Says Home Invasion Was Illegal And Awarded N20Billion Damages
AGF Malami Floored By Civl Rights Fighter, Sunday igbo
An Ibadan High Court has described the invasion of the home of Chief Sunday Igboho in July, this year (2021) as illegal, claiming the military bombardment of his private property was arbitrary aggression.
Justice Ladiran Akintola sitting in the Oyo State High Court directed the Department of State Security (DSS) to pay N20 billion for compensation to civil right activist for unlawfully invading his Soka junction home in Ibadan, Oyo State capital.
Akintola awarded the sum as exemplary and aggravated damages against the secret police in a suit filed by Igboho in which he is seeking N500 billion damages for the illegal bombardment and the invasion.
The court declared the invasion illegal and tongue-flogged the DSS and its leadership for acting so arbitrarily in such aggressive manner and on and prejudices” from his agitation for the Yoruba nation
The Oyo State High Court was giving his ruling on the N500 billion fundamental human rights case instituted by Igboho, a Yoruba Nation activist whose home was swarmed by a combined team of DSS officials, traditionalists, and over 300 soldiers who bombarded the Soka junction home of the activist, tearing the gates with military armored tanks. Two friends of the Yoruba Nation self-determination house were killed in a cold and brutal manner.
Igboho through his lawyer, Yomi Alliyu, filed had filed a suit challenging the invasion on July 1 by the combined team of national security apparatus from different institutions.
Igboho, among others, seeking an order of the court to declare the invasion of his residence by DSS operatives as illegal and an infringement on his fundamental human rights.
The three respondents in the filed case were the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami (SAN), as the first respondent, SSS as the second respondent and Director of SSS in Oyo State as the third respondent.
The court had said on the last adjournment date that the case would be for ruling if the preliminary objections raised by the three respondents in the case succeeded, but would be for judgment if the objections failed in the case marked as M/435/2021.
Addition -SR
