Order bars the Chairman and “all persons acting under his authority” from unlawfully banning or disrupting Ganye Concern Citizens Association, but also binds the association to notify the Police, the Army and the DSS before any gathering
GANYE, Adamawa State. Just three days after eight plaintiffs dragged eleven men to court over the violent disruption of an association’s inauguration, the Upper Area Court No. 1, Ganye, has made its first major move. It granted an interlocutory injunction against the Chairman of Ganye Local Government Area.
In a certified true copy of the order dated 19 October 2026, Hon. Kabiru Musa Esq. restrained the Chairman, his agents, servants, privies and “ALL PERSONS” acting under his authority or in concert with him. The order bars them from imposing or enforcing any unlawful ban on the Ganye Concern Citizens Association (CAC Reg. No. 9471672), or from unlawfully interfering with its lawful activities. The restraint lasts until the substantive suit is heard and determined.
The case behind the order
The plaintiffs, led by Basari Columba, allege that on 11 October 2026 the defendants stormed the Poksum Multi-Purpose Hall, New Market Road, during the inauguration of the association’s Caretaker Executive Committee. They say the defendants assaulted members, guests and two journalists and carried away property. The programme stopped at item seven, leaving eleven items untreated, chiefly an appeal launch for a secretariat, furniture, equipment and an operational vehicle.
The plaintiffs claim ₦15 million in special damages, ₦5 million in general damages and costs. They also allege the defendants openly said the Chairman sent them. Those claims remain allegations, and the defendants have yet to respond in court.
What the judge ordered
Moved by plaintiffs’ counsel, I.S. Emmabo Esq., the court reviewed submissions, affidavit evidence “and the applicable law”. The order has seven paragraphs, which in summary:
1- The Chairman and all persons acting under him are restrained from imposing or enforcing any unlawful ban on the association.
2- They are restrained from unlawfully disrupting its meetings, programmes, inaugurations and fundraising activities “by force, intimidation, threats or other unlawful means”.
3- The association must notify and liaise with the Ganye Police Division, the relevant Nigerian Army formation, the Department of State Services (DSS) and other security agencies before any public gathering, and comply with all lawful security requirements.
4- The association and its members must conduct their programmes peacefully and refrain from violence, intimidation and provocation.
5- All parties and persons bound by the order must refrain from taking the law into their own hands and pursue grievances through lawful means.
6- All parties must maintain the lawful status quo and take no step that would render the court’s eventual judgment nugatory.
7- The order stays in force until the substantive suit is determined, unless discharged, varied or set aside by the court or a competent appellate court.
The matter was adjourned to 22 October 2026 for further mention.
The legal anatomy
A double-edged order. The ruling is not a one-sided victory. Paragraphs 3 and 4 place pre-notification and peace obligations on the association itself, and paragraphs 5 and 6 bind every party. The court has restrained the alleged aggressor and also set ground rules for the claimant.
A word that matters. Every restraint is qualified by the word “unlawful”. The order does not find that the Chairman banned the association or sponsored any disruption. It merely forbids him, if inclined, from doing so unlawfully. Whether he did anything at all is for trial.
The party question. The Chairman is not among the eleven named defendants, yet the order binds him by his office. The copy seen by this newspaper records submissions by the plaintiffs’ counsel only. It does not record any appearance for the Chairman. Lawyers will watch whether he moves to discharge or vary the order, as paragraph 7 expressly allows.
Interlocutory, not final. The plaintiffs had asked for an “interim” injunction in their summons. The court granted an interlocutory one, which is a more durable shield, though still provisional.
All eyes are on 22 October. The defendants will be expected to respond to the summons. The Chairman may react to an order that restrains him in his official capacity. The association now has judicial cover for its activities, along with a duty to alert the police, the Army and the DSS before it next gathers. For a town still absorbing the images of 11 October, the court has set the rules of engagement.
