Olusegun Ariyo
The embattled Lagos-based lawyer and human rights activist, Dele Farotimi has filed a preliminary objection asking the Ado Ekiti Magistrate Court to strike out the suit.
Farotimi requested on Monday ahead of Tuesday’s hearing of the defamation charge against him.
DAILY POST recalls that the human rights activist was granted N50 million bail on Monday.
The preliminary objection dated December 9, 2024, was filed through his lawyer, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika, leading 19 others.
It was brought under Section 36(8) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, Sections 4(1) of the criminal law of Ekiti state, Section 77(10(a), 147 and 370 of the Ekiti State Administration of Criminal Justice Law 2014) and Sections 25 and 42 of the Magistrates Courts Law (No 5,2014) of Ekiti State.
In the five grounds of the objection, Farotimi argued, among other things, that the charge before the magistrate court was unknown to law, non-existent and that the magistrate acted without jurisdiction on an incompetent charge.
Specifically, the five grounds of the application are:
“That the 16 count charge before the magistrate court refers to alleged offences contrary to and punishable under the” Criminal Code Act”.
“That the Criminal Code Act was a law applicable by adoption and domestication in Ekiti State of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as the Criminal Code Law, Cap. C16. Laws of Ekiti, 2012.
“That the Criminal Code Law, Cap. C16, Laws of Ekiti, 2012 has been replaced and expressly repealed by Section 429 (a) of the Criminal Law of Ekiti State, 2021.
“That the crime of defamation of Aare Afe Babalola, SAN, OFR, and two of his partners, Olu Daramola, SAN, Olu Faro and the law firm of Afe Babalola & Co., alleged and particularised in all said counts of the Charge, and upon which the Defendant was arraigned and unwittingly ordered detained in prison by the – Honourable Magistrate, is unknown to and are non-existent in the
Críminal Law of Ekiti State, 2021.
“The Honourable Magistrate acted without jurisdiction when he countenanced the Charge, allowed the Defendant’s arraignment, and ordered his detention in prison upon the incompetent charge.”
