You are here
Home > Judiciary > Courts 'N' Cases > Dino Melaye Loses Bid to Stop House of Reps on Infectious Disease Bill

Dino Melaye Loses Bid to Stop House of Reps on Infectious Disease Bill

Social media sharing

•Court Strikes Out Suit against Gbajabiamila, Reps

Ayode Lawal

A Federal High Court in Abuja yesterday struck out a suit instituted by former Senator Dino Melaye challenging the propriety of the Control of Infectious Disease Bill 2020.

Melaye had challenged the bill initiated by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Honourable Femi Gbajabiamila on the grounds that the proposed bill is inconsistent with provisions of the 1999 Constitution.

The former Senator also predicated his action on the grounds that the bill if passed into law, will breach his fundamental rights to own property among others.

Specifically, Melaye questioned section 13 of the proposed bill which empowers the Director General of the Nigeria Center for Disease Control (NCDC) to order the arrest of anybody suspected to have Covid-19 and refuses to make himself available for medical examination.

The applicant also queried the power of the NCDC DG to take over anybody’s house and convert it into an isolation center without an order of court.

However, delivering ruling in a preliminary objection against the suit argued by Dr Kayode Ajulo on behalf of the speaker, Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu agreed that Melaye’s case is not justiceable for now.

Justice Ojukwu also agreed with Ajulo that what Melaye complained against was just a draft of a bill that has not been subjected to debate and public hearing by the House of Representatives.

The judge said that the draft bill for now has no binding force of law that can be held against anybody, adding that such a draft can only be litigated upon when finally passed into law and accented to by the president.

However, the judge agreed that Melaye has sufficient reason to fear that his fundamental rights would be infringed upon but said that for now, there is no cause of action since the contentious draft bill cannot be said to be conclusive in character.

“From the clear and understanding of the position of law, the draft bill complained against by the applicant is not enjoying binding effect of the law.

“The draft bill can only be said to be at embryo stage and granting the reliefs sought by the applicant at this stage will open floodgates of litigations that may hinder the discharge of functions by the National Assembly”.

Consequently the judge struck out the case for being incompetent and lacking in merit.


Social media sharing

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Top