Posted by By GODWIN TSA, Abuja on
The Federal Government's bid to stop the review of the political asylum it granted former Liberian President, Charles Taylor crashed Tuesday before a Federal High Court which dismissed the application for want of merit.
The Federal Government's bid to stop the review of the political asylum it granted former Liberian President, Charles Taylor crashed Tuesday before a Federal High Court which dismissed the application for want of merit.
Besides, the court has consequently set down the review of Taylor's asylum for December 6, 2005, after its decision.
The plaintiffs, Emmanuel Egbuna and David Anyaele had filed the suit before the court for an order of mandamus compelling the Federal Government to reconsider the refugee status granted the former Liberian president.
The two Nigerian businessmen also asked the court for an order of certiorari, quashing the refugee status granted to Taylor as well as his release for trial before a special court on war crime in Sierra Leone.
They argued that the former warlord masterminded the civil war in Sierra Leone to destabilize the state and to gain access to the mineral wealth in the country.
In an affidavit in support of the suit, the plaintiffs whose hands were chopped off in Liberia claimed that they were victims of the act of impunity of Taylor during the period.
Represented by their counsel, Kunle Fagbohunlu, the plaintiffs narrated their ordeals as well as those of other Nigerians in the hands of the former Liberian warlord, alleging that he committed heinous crimes against humanity in the course of the war.
But counsel to the Federal Government, Mr. Wole Aina, had through a preliminary objection, challenged the locus standi of the plaintiffs to institute the action.
Government had also argued that the plaintiffs did not show how their rights were violated by the asylum, adding that their action did not disclose any reasonable cause of action against the defendants.
It was also government's position that the action of the plaintiffs was statute barred by virtue of Public Officers Protection Act, which stipulated that such suit should be filed within three months of the action.
However, the presiding judge, Justice Stephen Adah held that the plaintiffs had suffered irreparable injury by their mutilated hands and had justiceable rights to pursue.
Justice Adah who declared that the asylum was a continued injury suffered by the plaintiffs, dismissed the objection raised by government and set down the review of the asylum for December 6, 2005.