The 1st Respondent is the Executive Governor of Gombe State, the 2nd Respondent is the Attorney General of Gombe State, and the 3rd Respondent is the Commissioner of Police, Gombe State.
A Gombe-based legal practitioner, Usamatu Abubakar, Esq., has filed a fundamental rights enforcement suit at the Federal High Court in Abuja, seeking a declaration that the Gombe State Government and the state police commissioner have violated his rights to freedom of movement.
The 1st Respondent is the Executive Governor of Gombe State, the 2nd Respondent is the Attorney General of Gombe State, and the 3rd Respondent is the Commissioner of Police, Gombe State.
In the suit, filed under the provisions of Chapter Four of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), Abubakar also seeks N50 million as general, exemplary, and compensatory damages for what he describes as an unlawful restriction on the use of motorcycles in Gombe State between 7:00 PM and 6:00 AM.
The restriction, he contends, has been in force since June 11, 2025, without any law passed by the Gombe State House of Assembly to authorise it.
The suit lists as respondents the Governor of Gombe State, the Attorney General of Gombe State, and the Commissioner of Police, Gombe State. According to the originating motion, the applicant is asking the court to grant several reliefs, including: “A declaration of this Honourable Court that the restriction on the use of motor cycles in Gombe state between 7:00 PM to 6:00AM from the 11th of June, 2025 till the present moment without any law passed to that effect constitutes a violation of the Applicant’s fundamental rights to freedom of movement guaranteed under Section 41(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
“An order of this Honourable Court compelling the Respondents to immediately lift the restriction on the use of motor cycles in Gombe state between 7:00 PM to 6:00AM and to release unconditionally all motorcycles to every citizen whose motorcycles were punitively confiscated within the above-mentioned period in respect of this matter without any law passed to that effect.
“An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Respondents, their privies, servants, officers or authorized agents by whatever name so called from further disturbing or interfering with the rights of the Applicant to freedom of movement in any other way or manner whatsoever in respect of this matter without any law passed to that effect.
“A written public apology by the Respondents to the Applicant to be published in two (2) national daily newspapers and social media accounts of the 3rd Respondent for the unwarranted infringement of the Applicant’s fundamental rights.
“Payment of the sum of N50,000,000.00 (Fifty Million Naira) as General, Exemplary and Compensatory Damages for the infringement of the Applicant’s fundamental rights to freedom of movement.”
The application also seeks N5 million in legal costs and a 10 percent per annum interest on the judgment sum until complete liquidation.
Basis of the Suit
In his affidavit, Abubakar, a practising lawyer in Gombe, explained that he regularly works late and relies on his motorcycle for commuting and transporting his family.
He stated that on June 11, 2025, the Gombe State Commissioner of Police issued a press release restricting motorcycle use in the state from 7:00 PM to 6:00 AM, followed by a second release the next day, which provided exemptions for essential service workers. He argued that the sudden restrictions, issued without consultation or legal authority, caused widespread panic among residents who struggled to get home.
He further pointed out that the governor, as the elected chief security officer of the state, publicly supported the police directive despite no law having been passed to authorise it.
“Although the restriction introduced by the 3rd Respondent was not preceded by consultation with the 1st Respondent as the elected representative of Gombe state, the 1st Respondent has nonetheless publicly supported the decision of the 3rd Respondent even though it has no backing in law. That I know for a fact that the Gombe state house of assembly and the 1st Respondent have not passed any bill into law to that effect.”
Impact on Daily Life
Abubakar explained that the restriction severely limited his freedom of movement, leaving him frequently stranded after work.
He noted that he could not use his motorcycle or easily access commercial motorcycles, and commercial vehicles had become scarce due to the ban, affecting both him and the wider community.
He also described a situation in which his wife was seriously ill but he could not take her to the hospital on his motorcycle, nor could he find a commercial vehicle: “Recently, my wife was seriously ill one night but I could not take her to the hospital on my motorcycle due to the restriction and I could not find any commercial vehicle to take her to the hospital to get treatment.”
According to the affidavit, the restriction has affected most Gombe residents, who rely on motorcycles as their primary mode of transport, and disrupted religious and social activities.
“Further, Islamic religious gatherings, lectures, seminars and meetings that were hitherto held at various Mosques and Islamic institutions between Magrib and Isha’I (i.e between 7:00pm to 10:00pm) and beyond, are no longer practicable now because of the restriction of movement.”
Alleged Abuse of Police Power
Abubakar also claimed that police officers under the command of the 3rd Respondent have been punishing citizens exercising their right to freedom of movement. “That I know for a fact that officers under the command of the 3rd Respondent have been punishing those who exercise their fundamental rights to freedom of movement and ride their motorcycles after 7pm by confiscating their motorcycles when they have not violated any valid law whatsoever.”
He emphasized that a mere press release does not constitute law: “That I know for a fact by my training as a lawyer that a mere press release by the 3rd Respondent cannot amount to a valid law in a democratic state like Gombe.”
Attempts at Resolution
Before filing the suit, Abubakar sought information and appealed to the authorities. On June 22, 2025, he wrote to the police commissioner under the Freedom of Information Act requesting details about the press releases, but received no response.
“It is now more than 30 days after the receipt of the letter but the 3rd Respondent is yet to respond to the letter or comply with the request contained therein,” he said.
His counsel, Hamza Nuhu Dantani, Esq., also wrote to the Governor on July 24, 2025, appealing for the lifting of the restriction, but the appeal was ignored.
Abubakar highlighted the chaos caused by the restriction, saying, “Once 7 pm is approaching in Gombe, everywhere is turned into panic and chaos, as this restriction has now disrupted sectors that are essential to daily lives.”
Legal Grounds for the Application
The application cites Section 41 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees every Nigerian citizen the right to freedom of movement.
“This freedom of movement can only be derogated from pursuant to a valid law that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society,” the affidavit states.
Abubakar contends that the actions of the respondents constitute a direct violation of this constitutional right.
“That I believe the actions of the Respondents constitute a violation of my fundamental rights to freedom of movement guaranteed by the constitution,” he said.
He argues that he is entitled to both declarations and remedies, including compensation and an apology from the respondents: “The Applicant is equally entitled to legal remedy in form of declarations, apology and damages against the Respondents for the violation of his constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights.”
Prayer to the Court
In his originating motion, Abubakar seeks several orders, including immediate lifting of the restriction, unconditional release of confiscated motorcycles, a public apology, and financial compensation. He also requests a perpetual injunction to prevent future interference with his freedom of movement.
The hearing date for the case is yet to be fixed, but the applicant has requested that the matter be called at 9:00 AM or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard.
