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 gasoline towards some members.
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 gasoline was allegedly deployed towards some of the members the police stated 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 somewhat than forestall 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 stated.
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 might anticipate equal safety below 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 deal with failures to present requested data and the results of wrongful denial of entry.
Section 7(4) treats failure to present data throughout the prescribed interval as a refusal, whereas Section 7(5) offers for a positive of ₦500,000 upon conviction the place wrongful denial of entry is established.
Hikima warned that any illegal refusal to present the requested data might 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 suitable to search declaratory, injunctive and compensatory reliefs over any alleged infringement of their constitutional rights in the course of the October 11 incident.
The lawyer concluded by difficult the police to reconcile their said intention to defend the members 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 stated the organisers anticipated the command to reply inside seven days of receiving the letter, including that Nigerians had been watching how the matter can be dealt with.
