The case, filed before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, is registered as Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/3984/2026.
The plaintiffs are Chronicles Reporters News Limited and Mannaseh B.P., an African Action Congress member and resident of Kuje Area Council. They are represented by lawyers from Pathlegal and Co.
The suit followed the circulation of a video in which the council chairman was allegedly heard saying residents in his area council had to choose between supporting the APC and leaving the area.
“I have said in my area council that it’s either you are for the APC or you leave the area council. I am not arguing about it at all,” he was quoted as saying in the video.
The plaintiffs are asking the court to declare the alleged statement unlawful and unconstitutional, arguing that it threatens fundamental rights guaranteed under Sections 39, 40, 41 and 42 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
They also cited provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, particularly those relating to freedom of expression, association, movement and protection from discrimination.
Among the reliefs sought is an order permanently restraining Shekwolo, as well as his agents, representatives and officials acting on his behalf, from intimidating, harassing, discriminating against or attempting to expel residents because of their political affiliations or views.
The plaintiffs are also demanding N100 million in exemplary and aggravated damages over the alleged violation of their rights.
They want the court to compel the chairman to issue a public apology and publish it in two national newspapers.
The applicants have further requested that relevant security authorities and the Independent National Electoral Commission investigate the alleged declaration to establish whether it constitutes an offence under the Electoral Act 2022 or any other applicable law.
Mannaseh, who is the lead applicant, said the case was intended to challenge what he described as an attempt by an elected official to impose political allegiance on residents.
He argued that holding public office does not give an elected official ownership of the territory under his administration or the authority to dictate the political affiliation of residents.
Mannaseh said his membership of the AAC and residence in Kuje made the alleged statement particularly concerning to him and other opposition supporters in the area.
He maintained that residents should be free to support political parties of their choice without facing threats to their right to live in their community.
The plaintiffs further argued that the issue was not simply a disagreement between political parties, but a constitutional matter because the alleged comments were attributed to a serving public official.
According to them, linking a person’s right to remain in Kuje with support for a particular political party raises serious questions about the protection of citizens’ freedom of expression, association, movement and residence.
They also contended that Kuje Area Council is a public administrative territory belonging to all residents, irrespective of their political affiliations, and should not be treated as the preserve of members or supporters of the ruling party.
The suit is therefore asking the court to determine whether the alleged statement amounts to an unlawful attempt to make political loyalty a condition for continued residence or participation in community life.
The case could also draw attention to the limits of political authority at the grassroots and the responsibility of elected officials to respect the constitutional rights of citizens, including those who support opposition parties.
As of the time of filing the suit, no response from the Kuje Area Council chairman to the allegations was contained in the material available.
