Follow Us on Google
Gyang Bere, Jos
The University of Jos has been dragged before a Federal High Court sitting in Jos by 50 aggrieved persons over the demolition of their houses in alleged breach of their fundamental human rights.
The plaintiffs, through their counsel, Mr B.K. Adam, had filed an originating Summon before the Presiding Judge, Justice Dorcas Agishi, seeking for an order stoping the varsity from further demolition of their houses.
Joined in the suit by the plaintiffs is the Nigerian Army (NA), which they accused of given the varsity cover and protection during the demolition of their houses on March 7 at Naragutta village, Jos North Local Government of Plateau.
When the case came up before Justice Agishi on Thursday, Adam told the court that he understood that service has not been effected on the defendants an would need time to do that for them to be in court for the case.
He then applied for an adjournment to enable him serve the respondents with hearing notices.
Justice Agishi, however, granted the application and adjourned the case to June 18 for proof of service and hearing of the case.
In an affidavit deposed to by one of the Plaintiffs, Salisu Mohammed, that there was no notice to them prior to the demolition exercise carried by the University via Bulldozers and Excavators under the watchful eyes of its Chief security officer.
The Plaintiffs said pursuance to sections 34, 43, 44 and 46 of the constitution of the federal Republic of Nigeria and order IV Rules 3 and 4 of Fundamental rights 2009, they seeking for condemnation of the action of the varsity and the army.
According to them. “The action of the respondents is intended to cause maximum trauma to us and our families having rendered us homeless.”
They urged the court to condemn the supervisory role of the Army during the seizure and demolition of their personal residents by the University authorities.
“In the first place, we were not alleged to be a threat to the university’s peace and security to warrant such a treatment from the defendants,” the plaintiffs asserted.
