In a letter addressed to the Commissioner of Police, Hikima invoked the Freedom of Information Act, 2011, requesting solutions to 9 questions regarding the police motion, the alleged safety risk and the deployment of tear fuel in opposition to some individuals.
The lawyer questioned why the police prevented the gathering regardless of reportedly acknowledging that it was lawful and didn’t require police permission.
“Given the very substantial number of armed police personnel deployed, why was the Command unable or unwilling to secure the venue and allow the lawful gathering to proceed?” he queried.
Hikima additional questioned why tear fuel was allegedly deployed in opposition to some of the individuals the police mentioned had mobilised to defend.
The lawyer additionally sought clarification on whether or not the choice to cease the gathering originated from the Kano State Police Command or concerned directions from different authorities.
He requested whether or not the police motion was linked to any coverage or coordinated effort to frustrate peaceable political actions by people or organisations opposed to the Federal Government.
The letter additionally sought assurances that the command would defend future peaceable TMG conferences fairly than stop their organisers from exercising their constitutional rights.
“We are not seeking permission from the Police to hold subsequent lawful gatherings. We seek a clear answer as to whether the Command is prepared to protect our exercise of those rights and, where threats exist, address the persons making those threats rather than suppress the lawful activities of their intended targets,” he mentioned.
Hikima cited Sections 39, 40, 35 and 41 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, which respectively assure freedom of expression, peaceable meeting, affiliation, private liberty, and freedom of motion.
He argued that the incident raised broader questions on whether or not residents opposed to the present administration may anticipate equal safety underneath the legislation when exercising their constitutional rights.
The lawyer additionally drew the command’s consideration to Sections 7(4) and seven(5) of the Freedom of Information Act, which handle failures to present requested info and the results of wrongful denial of entry.
Section 7(4) treats failure to present info throughout the prescribed interval as a refusal, whereas Section 7(5) offers for a advantageous of ₦500,000 upon conviction the place wrongful denial of entry is established.
Hikima warned that any illegal refusal to present the requested info may immediate judicial motion and formal petitions to the suitable authorities for investigation.
“For the avoidance of doubt, your position as Commissioner of Police does not confer immunity from investigation, prosecution or other lawful proceedings in respect of conduct constituting an offence under Nigerian law,” he said.
He added that the organisers reserved the fitting to search declaratory, injunctive and compensatory reliefs over any alleged infringement of their constitutional rights through the October 11 incident.
The lawyer concluded by difficult the police to reconcile their said intention to defend the individuals with the actions that allegedly uncovered them to hazard.
“If the Police came to protect us, why did their actions ultimately expose us to greater danger?” Hikima requested.
He mentioned the organisers anticipated the command to reply inside seven days of receiving the letter, including that Nigerians have been watching how the matter could be dealt with.
