Lagos-Calabar Highway: Court Hears Suit Against FG, HiTech
The Federal High Court in Lagos has fixed January 27, 2025, to hear a lawsuit challenging the award of the N15tn Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway project to HiTech Construction Company.
Justice A. O. Owoeye fixed the hearing date on Tuesday after resolving the issue of appearance for the second defendant and granting an extension of time to parties to enable them to regularize their processes.
A former governorship candidate of the African Democratic Congress in Lagos State, Funsho Doherty, had dragged the Attorney General of the Federation, Bureau of Public Procurement, and HiTech Construction Company before the court over open competitive bidding.
Doherty alleged that the Federal Ministry of Works violated the Public Procurement Act 2007 by awarding the first two phases of the highway to HiTech Construction through a single-source procurement process, bypassing the required open competitive bidding.
He accused the Federal Ministry of Works of unlawfully awarding the highway’s first two sections to HiTech Construction without adhering to Nigeria’s public procurement laws.
In his originating summons, Doherty argued that the ministry’s decision bypassed the open competitive bidding process mandated by the Public Procurement Act 2007.
He claimed that the construction began without the required Environmental Impact Assessment, which breaches the Environmental Impact Assessment Act 1992.
The plaintiff is asking the court for a declaration that the award of the first two sections of the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway Project by the Federal Ministry of Works to the third defendant without subjecting the contract to open competitive bidding was unlawful and void, being in breach of the Public Procurement Act 2007.
He also asked the court for a declaration that the commencement of construction of the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway Project without first undertaking an Environmental Impact Assessment was unlawful and a breach of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act of 1992.
He further sought a declaration that the Federal Ministry of Environment and the second defendant failed in their statutory duties of ensuring compliance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Act and the Public Procurement Act.
Doherty asked the court for an order setting aside the award of the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway project to the third defendant.
“An order of court restraining the Federal Ministry of Works and the third defendant, by themselves or through their agents, from further construction of the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway until compliance with the Public Procurement Act and the Environmental Impact Assessment Act.
“An order of court directing the Federal Ministry of Works to subject all other sections of the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway project yet to be awarded to open competitive bidding as contemplated under the Public Procurement Act.”
On the last adjourned date on November 18, 2024, the first and second defendants were represented by Abiodun Owonikoko (SAN), but his appearance for both defendants was opposed by the plaintiff’s counsel, D.D. Duru, for representing the second defendant, arguing that the second defendant’s separate counsel should appear as it is an independent institution.
Owonikoko then asked that the process filed by the second defendant should be struck out.
Duru, in his response, said, “It will be improper for the SAN to say he was instructed to ask for the striking out of the second defendant’s application. It is either the lawyer who signed the processes comes to withdraw or the SAN files for a change of counsel.”
When the case came up on Tuesday, Duru informed the court that the matter for the day was to resolve the issue of appearance for the second defendant (Bureau of Public Procurement).
A new counsel, I.J. Okechukwu, who appeared for the first defendant, told the court that they had resolved the issue of appearance for the second defendant.
Okechukwu said, “Processes have been filed on behalf of the second defendant we have resolved to withdraw appearance for the second defendant and appear only for the first defendant.”
He also applied that the application filed and dated November 18, 2024, on behalf of the second defendant seeking an extension of time and the counter affidavit in response to the originating summons of the plaintiff be deleted and retain only the name of the first defendant.
“In light of our withdrawal of representation for the second defendant, may I apply to amend the motion on notice dated November 18, 2024, to delete the name of the second defendant and retain only the name of the first defendant.”
However, the court granted the prayers of Okechukwu.
The new counsel for the second defendant, Mohammed Nuhu, said he was not opposing the appointment of an external counsel by the Attorney General of the Federation, adding that it has to be done through proper channels.
“As of this morning, we have not received any letter from the AGF of an external solicitor’s appointment to represent the second defendant. Be that as it may, we are not opposing the withdrawal of the application of representing the second defendant,” Nuhu said.
The plaintiff’s counsel, in his response, told the court that Doherty’s application on the motion on notice dated January 13, 2025, sought an order of the Court for the extension of time to file his counter affidavit.
He also urged the court to strike out the name of the second defendant from the plaintiff’s suit filed on December 23, 2024.
The court granted the plaintiff’s prayers.
Meanwhile, the third defendant’s counsel, Oyinkansola Badejo-Okunsanya, in an oral application sought leave to file and reply on points of law to the plaintiff’s written address filed in opposition to the third defendant’s preliminary objection dated November 4, 2024, and the plaintiff’s written address in opposition dated December 20, 2024, but deemed regularize today. (Tuesday).
There were no objections to the oral application, by the plaintiff and the first and second defendants.
But Okechukwu said they intend to also file a reply on point of law.
Consequently, the judge adjourned the hearing of all the processes till January 27, 2025.
