Proceedings at the Yaba Magistrate Court in Lagos on Thursday featured intense legal arguments after the prosecution objected to the appearance of human rights lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Femi Falana, as defense counsel for protesters arrested during an anti-demolition demonstration in Lagos State.
In defending himself as a counsel to the arrested protesters, Falana argued that Section 9 of the Lagos State Magistrates’ Court Law clearly states that all legal practitioners called to the Nigerian Bar, regardless of rank, title, or seniority, are entitled to appear before any Magistrate’s Court within the state.
Falana also referenced Section 36(6)(c) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which guarantees every person charged with a criminal offense the right to defend themselves in person or through legal practitioners of their own choice. He emphasized that any restriction based on a lawyer’s rank would violate that constitutional right.
He further cited the case of Attorney General of Lagos State v. Persons Unknown (2016), where the court ruled that the rank of SAN does not prevent a lawyer from appearing in any court in Lagos State. Falana expressed surprise at the prosecutor’s objection, noting that the same prosecutor is handling the case of Commissioner of Police v. Seun Kuti, where he and another Senior Advocate, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika (SAN), are defense counsel without any challenge to their appearance.
In her ruling, Magistrate I. O. Alaka dismissed the prosecutor’s objection, affirming that any lawyer who has been called to the Nigerian Bar is competent to appear before a Magistrate’s Court in Lagos State, and that the rank of SAN imposes no restrictions.
Following the ruling, Falana applied for bail on behalf of the defendants and urged the court to grant bail under liberal terms, arguing that the charges were illegal and aimed at criminalizing peaceful protest. He reminded the court that the Court of Appeal had affirmed in IGP v. ANPP (2008) the right of Nigerians to assemble and protest peacefully, directing the National Assembly to amend the Public Order Act accordingly.
Falana also highlighted Section 83(4) of the Police Establishment Act 2020, which obligates the police to provide security when notified of a public meeting, rally, or procession. “Where a person or organization notifies the police of his or its intention to hold a public meeting, rally or procession on a public highway or such meetings in a place where the public has access to, the police officer responsible for the area where the meeting rally or procession will take place shall mobilize personnel to provide security cover for the meeting, rally or the procession,” the section of the Police Establishment Act provides.
Falana explained that the protesters had duly notified the police of their intention to protest against frequent forced evictions and demolitions in Lagos communities, and that the police initially provided security as mandated by law. However, he claimed the police later violated the law by dispersing the peaceful protesters, during which the defendants and other protesters were brutalized and arrested, and some were injured by teargas and live ammunition.
“Your Honour, the charge cannot stand as it is an attempt to criminalize peaceful protest in Nigeria,” Falana asserted, noting his involvement in the IGP v. ANPP case from the Federal High Court to the Court of Appeal.
However, the Magistrate advised Falana to limit his submissions to the bail application and to reserve any objections regarding the charge’s competence for the trial stage. Falana clarified that his submissions aimed to strengthen the bail application and proceeded accordingly.
Despite strong opposition from the prosecutor, the court granted bail to the defendants, Hassan Taiwo, popularly known as Soweto, and Dele Frank, in the sum of ₦200,000 each.
