A Federal High Court, Lagos on Thursday struck out a suit instituted by a disabled lawyer, Daniel Onwe, challenging the non-enactment of a disability law in Nigeria.
Onwe instituted the suit against the National Assembly for failure to enact a law protecting the rights of persons living with disabilities in the country.
The respondent had raised a preliminary objection to the suit urging the court to dismiss same on the grounds that the processes were not properly endorsed for service outside the court’s jurisdiction.
When the suit was mentioned on Thursday, Onwe, who appeared for himself, informed the court that he had filed an application seeking to withdraw the suit on technical grounds.
He said that there was need to withdraw the suit to properly address the technical issues raised by the respondents and prayed the court to so hold.
In a short ruling, Justice R.M Aikawa struck out the suit.
Aikawa is a new judge, who replaced the former trial judge, Justice Jude Dagat, who was recently transferred from the Lagos division.
Meanwhile, the plaintiff has indicated intention to regularise his processes and re-file the suit.
In the suit, Onwe had argued that the absence of such legislation as a disability law amounted to a violation of the rights of the physically challenged, who he stressed were over 10 million in the country.
The lawyer is therefore seeking an order mandating the respondent to immediately enact the necessary laws to protect the rights of persons living with disabilities.
Onwe argued that the law would help to stop the violation of the fundamental rights of the physically challenged persons in the country.
He said that their fundamental rights were being violated with the absence of such laws as guaranteed by Sections 33, 34, 39, 40, 41 and 42 of the 1999 Constitution.
He argued that these rights were also contained in articles 4, 5, 9, 12(1), 13(3), 18(4) and 24 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights.
According to Onwe, public buildings, sidewalks and other architectural structures meant for the general public are not accessible as they had architectural barriers such as steep steps, which were often without lifts and ramps.
An affidavit supporting the suit stated, “I know as a fact that, draft bills for disability legislation have at different times been presented to the National Assembly for passage, which did not eventually metamorphose into law.”
Onwe therefore sought a court order directing the respondent to do the needful.
