$16bn EPZ: Court Adjourns Deep Seaport Case Sine Die

SAN FRANCISCO, July 07, (THEWILL)  – A Federal High Court sitting in Warri, Delta State, Tuesday, adjourned sine die a lawsuit contesting the location of the Deep Seaport, one of the components of the Export Processing Zone (EPZ) project proposed for Ugborodo in Warri South West Local Government Area of the state.

The case, Suit No: FHC/WR/86/2015, was filed by a Warri-based businessman, Chief Ayiri Emami, Barr. Itse Elijah Wilkie, Mike Okoturo, Pastor Emiko Fregene and Samuel Pirah, who are the 1st-5th plaintiffs (on behalf of Ugborodo community) challenging the purported naming of the Deep Seaport project.

When the case came up for hearing Tuesday, the Federal Government, Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Delta State Government and the Delta State Commissioner of Justice who are the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th Defendants respectively, in the lawsuit were conspicuously absent.

In the originating summon, the Ugborodo people are seeking an interlocutory injunction restraining the Federal Government, Nigerian Port Authority as well as the Delta State Government from naming the Deep Seaport project after Gbaramatu, an Ijaw Kingdom, which also claimed ownership of the parcel of land where the project is sited.

Presiding over the case, Justice Shittu Abubakar overruled an objection to the ruling on the interlocutory injunction sought by Fedude Zimughan, who leads two other counsel reportedly on behalf of the Gbaramatu people in Warri South- West Local Government Area, who had applied to be joined in the suit.

Besides Zimughan, application by D.J. Atotuomah (esq), apparently representing another Itsekiri interest, who also applied to be joined in the suit and wanted their applications to be heard same day was rejected by the court on the grounds that it was not yet time for a joinder to be granted in the substantive suit.

Fedude Zimughan had applied to be joined in the suit as second set of defendants, claiming that the application for interlocutory injunction sought by the plaintiffs will “one way or the other infringe violently on the rights of the parties seeking to be joined in the case.”

Counsel to the 3rd Defendant, Nigeria Port Authority (NPA), M.O. Maduakolam, who was represented in court , in his submission, posited that the prayer by the plaintiffs was speculative and had no documentary evidence to adduce that the Deep Seaport would be named after Gbaramatu. He added that the naming of project of such magnitude is the prerogative of the Federal Ministry of Transport.

Counsel to the plaintiffs, Chief Efe Akpofure (SAN), in submission argued that 3rd Defendant did not properly attack the paragraphs in the plaintiff’s affidavits in support of the motion but merely contended that paragraph14-64 of the Plaintiffs deposition in the affidavits were all lies, which according to Akpofure, was a “vague submission” because he “failed to state what is right according to the law which means he had admitted to the averment of the plaintiffs.”

Akpofure told the court that all the defendants also admitted with paragraph 1-13 of the affidavit in support of the motion for interlocutory injunction as such the court should go ahead and grant the plaintiff’s prayers.

According to him, naming of projects like Petroleum Training Institute after Warri before it was changed to Effurun and Delta Broadcasting Service, DBS, Edjeba, earlier named DBS Warri caused unrest and as such the plaintiffs do not want renewed hostilities between the Ijaws and Itsekiris, hence the Interlocutory Injunction to stop the Deep Seaport from being named after Gbaramatu.

Consequently, he prayed the court to grant his prayers for an order of interim injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, officials, privies or whosoever from naming the Deep Seaport project sited in Ugborodo, after Gbaramatu or any other name, pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.

In his ruling, Justice Abubakar declared that the motion for joinder will be given after ruling on the interlocutory injunction and therefore adjourned ruling to later this week with a promise to communicate same to the parties in the suit.