Justice Ahmed Mohammed of the Abuja division of the Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday announced his decision to remit the case file in the suit relating to the bloody crisis between the Tiv and Jukun tribes in Taraba state to the Chief Judge of the court for further directives.
Justice Mohammed took the decision after he refused to assigned a date for the definite hearing of the case on the ground that his tenure as a vacation judge would expire today (Thursday).
Counsel to the applicants, the Incorporated Trustees Mdzough U Tiv, it’s president, CP. Ihiagh Iorbee and four others, Chief Sabastine Hon (SAN), had sought for a definite date for the hearing of the suit, after withdrawing his earlier application for an interlocutory injunction.
Although counsel to the respondents in the fundamental rights enforcement suit did not opposed to his application, the Judge said in view of the fact that his tenure as a vacation judge would expire on Thursday, it was better to remit the case file back to the Chief Judge of the court, Justice John Tsoho for direction.
Before Wednesday proceedings, the court had summoned Governor Darius Ishaku of Taraba State, retired Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Kumai Bayang Aka’ahs and 17 others to appear before it on legal issue.
The Judge had after listening to submissions by the applicant counsel, Chief Hon, ordered the respondents to appear before the court on August 26, 2020 and show cause why the interim orders as contained in the motion exparte marked FHC/ABJ/CS/955/2020, should not be granted.
In addition, Justice Mohammed also ordered the service of all processes in relation to the case and hearing notices on all the respondents. He adjourned till August 26 for the respondents to show cause.
Respondents in the case are the Governor of Taraba State, the Government of Taraba State, the Attorney General (AG) and Commission of Justice of the state, the Commission of Inquiry into the crises between Tiv and their Neighbouring Communities in Taraba States and other Related Matters Thereto, and its members.
The members, listed as the 5th to 12th respondents, are Justice Kumai Bayang Aka’ahs (Chairman), Justice Emmanuel Garba, Justice Ambrose D. Mammadi (rtd), Barr. Danuma D. Rindam, Prof. Rotgak I. Gofwen, Prof. Istifanus Zabadi, Hamidu Audu Esq and Emeka Okoro Esq.
Also listed as respondents 13th to 19th are the Chief of Defence Staff, Chief of Army Staff, Chief of Air Staff, Chief of Naval Staff, Inspector General of Police, Director General, State Security Service (SSS) and Commandant, Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC).
Meanwhile, Governor Ishaku and the Taraba state government have filed a notice of preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the court to adjudicate on the matter.
Counsel to the governor and the state government, Abdul Ibrahim (SAN) informed the court that the notice of preliminary objection was filed on August 23, 2020.
In like manner, counsel to the Attorney General of Taraba state, J.H. Gimba, a Director of Litigation in the state ministry of Justice, told the court that he has filed a notice of preliminary objection challening the Territorial jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit.
Gimba further told the court that he has equally filed counter affidavits challenging both the originating summons and the application for an interlocutory injunction.
On his part, counsel for the 4th to 12th respondents, Nasir Dangiri (SAN), said he filed a memorandum of conditional appearance on behalf of his clients.
Other counsel who represented the various security agencies cited as respondents in the suit, Yakubu Maikasuwa, Madu Joe Kyari-Gadzama, Abbas Olayiwola and Evelyn Iyanya, all filed a memorandum of conditional appearance on behalf of their respective clients in the matter.
After sorting out some preliminary issues, the applicants lead counsel, Chief Sabastine Hon (SAN), applied orally, for the withdrawal of his application for an interlocutory injunction.
He informed the court that the withdrawal was based on the fact that the Commission of Inquiry has already completed it’s public sitting.
The Constitutional lawyer rather applied for the court to give a definite date for the hearing of the suit.
His application was not opposed to by the counsel to all the respondents.
In his short ruling, Justice Mohammed struck out the application for the interlocutory injunction, but said he was going to remit the case file back to the Chief Judge of the court for further direction in view of the fact that his tenure as a vacation judge would expire on Thursday.
The applicants had prayed for an order of interim injunction restraining the Commission of Inquiry and its members “from sitting to conduct/continuing to sit to conduct proceedings or taking any further step pursuant to the the instrument constituting them pending the determination of the motion on notice.”
It is the contention of the applicants that the composition of the Commission of Inquiry and its name were skewed against the interest of the Tiv tribe and constituted a threat to their fundamental human rights.
The applicants are, in the substantive suit, praying the court for among others, order quashing the instrument setting up the commission, quashing its proceedings and restraining the Governor, the state government and the AG from receiving and acting on any report from the commission.
They noted that the unending crises between Jukun and Tiv tribes in Taraba State, to which many lives and property have been lost, resulted from the “resolve of the Jukun tribe to forcefully push out the Tiv people from Taraba State for political and other reasons.”
The applicants stated that not only is Governor Ishaku, who had allegedly worked against Tiv’s interest, is a jukun man, key members of the Commission of Inquiry are from Jukun and allied tribes.
They noted that while Justice Garba is a Jukun from Kurmi Local Govt, Justice Mamadi and Prof Gofwen are from Bachama and Angas tribes, which both have root from the Kwararafa Kingdom like the Jukun.
The applicants alleged, in a supporting affidavit, that “the 1st respondent (Ishaku) has, through his many polices, shown open bias and discrimination against the Tiv people indigenous to, living in and travelling through Taraba State, including but not limited to actively and openly supporting genocide by the Jukun against the Tiv.”
They alleged that Ishaku has consstently aided the Jukun in their purported plan to “deliberately and forcefully push out the Tiv from Taraba State, enabling the Jukun to take over Tiv ancestral lands and then renaming Tiv towns and villages in Jukun language.
“At east 25 such towns and villages have suffered this fate, the most prominent of which was the renaming “Dan’ Anacha” Town/Village as “Kwararafa” Town/Village to reflect Jukun’s allegiance to an old, defunct and spent Kingdom.
“The said Commission of Inquiry (4th-12th respondents herein), in its prejudiced and biased name and terms of reference against the Tiv race, is a continuation of the genocidal and discriminatory activities of the 1st respondent against the Tiv race or tribe.
“The 1st respondent has spurned all efforts made by the Benue and Nasarawa state governments to either set up a Joint Commission of Inquiry; or to ask the Federal Government to set up a Central Commission of Inquiry; or to enforce previous reports aimed at bringing lasting peace among the indigenous people of Taraba State; or to take any step whatsoever to end the crisis.
“The 1st-3rd respondents are the financiers of the 4th-12th respondents, hence, owing to the biased naming of the Commission of Inquiry/terms of reference thereof, coupled with the antecedents of the 1st respondent, we the applicants are genuinely afraid of likelihood of bias against us the applicants and our tribesmen.
“The 13th to 19th ( the security chiefs) respondents have also been aiding the 1st respondent to push out the Tiv people from Taraba State as seen n the pictures/comments on facebook.”
The applicants stated that members of the Commission of Inquiry were sitting at the Hope Afresh Foundation Conference Hall, “a property owned by the 1st respondent, wherein his wife is running a pet project known as the “Hope Afresh Foundation.”
