Former presidential aspirant, Adamu Garba, has absented himself from court in a suit against Twitter Chief Executive Officer, Jack Dorsey.
Garba had dragged Dorsey to court for endorsing and supporting the recent #EndSARS protest in Nigeria.
Tope Akinyode, a lawyer, who joined the suit to defend Twitter, revealed that both Garba and his lawyer were not in court, forcing the judge to adjourn the case.
BREAKING: I was at the Federal High Court today to defend Adamu Garba’a lawsuit against @jack and @Twitter. However, @adamugarba & his lawyers failed to show up in Court without given reasons & the Court has now adjourned case to 22nd April, 2021.
— Tope Akinyode (@TopeAkinyode) November 25, 2020
Announcing his joining of the suit against Twitter and its CEO, Akinyode said, “I’ve filed court processes to challenge @adamugarba’s lawsuit against @jack and @Twitter. Jack’s support for Nigeria’s cause is commendable. We’ll protect our freedom of expression and resist the move to ban Twitter in Nigeria.”
In the notice of joinder filed in the case, Adamu Garba v. The President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and nine others, Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/1391/2020 and sighted by SaharaReporters, Akinyode said he was an avid user of the online microblogging platform, Twitter, adding that it had been a significant avenue for him and other Nigerians to air their opinions and exercise their freedom of expression.
The lawyer said his tweets and that of many other Nigerians have formed a bedrock of public discourses, which have shaped and are still shaping government decisions.
Garba had instituted a $1bn lawsuit against Twitter and its founder, Dorsey, at the Federal High Court Abuja, over his role in the #EndSARS protests, which had led to violence across the country, resulting in the destruction of properties and loss of lives.
Jack was accused of actively supporting the funding of the #EndSARS protests across the nation as disclosed by Adamu Garba through a series of tweet posted on his official Twitter handle on Tuesday, October 20, 2020.
The motion on notice was brought pursuant to order II Rules 1, 2, 3 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009 and Sections 34(1), 35(1) and 41(1), and 43 of the 1999 constitution.
