A High Court in Kano State granted an exparte order restraining the Nigeria Police from inviting, arresting, and harassing the All Progressives Congress (APC) ward officers behind the suspension of Abdullahi Ganduje on Friday.
In an order granted by Justice Yusuf Ubale Muhammad on May 2, the court restricted any attempt by the APC National Working Committee (NWC), State council of the party and APC acting National Chairman, from using security operatives to arrest or detain the Ganduje ward executives, pending the hearing and determination of motion on notice.
The exparte motion jointly filed by the Jafar Adamu and 10 others and Haladu Gwanjo and Laminu Sani Barguma-led factional ward officers, through their counsel Shamsu Jibrin Esq is seeking the protection of their fundamental human right as guaranteed by the constitution.
In the consolidated motion exparte dated April 29, the two affidavits first, sworn to by the applicant (Jafar Adamu) suit no. K/M759/2024 and second suit no. K/M758/2024 sworn by applicants Haladu Gwanjo and Laminu Sani Barguma).
- Bournemouth Humiliate Manchester United 3-0 at Old Trafford as Carrick Faces Mounting Pressure
Bournemouth delivered another painful blow to Manchester United on Sunday,… - Tragedy in Kogi: Police Corporal Allegedly Kills Female Colleague, Takes Own Life After Reported Relationship Crisis
A tragic shooting incident involving two serving police officers has…
The applicants are challenging the IGP, AIG zone 1 Kano, Commissioner of Police Kano, APC, APC NWC, Kano APC State Council and Ganduje.
“An interim order of injunction is hereby granted restraining the respondents in the two consolidated suits, their officers, agents, privies, or any other officer serving under them from inviting, arresting, harassing or detaining the applicants in respect of the subject matter of the suit, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice already filed.
” It is further ordered that interim order for the motion on notice and all other processes in this suits shall be served on all the respondents, timeously and before the next adjourned date.
”The case adjourned until June 5 for hearing of the motion on notice,” the judge held.
