The National Identification Authority (NIA) was not represented in Court yesterday, Monday, 23rd march 2020, to respond to an ex-parte application for interim injunction as alleged by certain media entities and other social media aficionados.
TBeing an ex-parte proceedings, the NIA was not a party in the matter let alone be heard. That’s why in granting the interim injunction, the Court asked the applicants to bring the application on notice to NIA within 10 days, otherwise the order lapses.
On Friday, 20th March 2020, the NIA was served with a motion on notice for … interim injunction, which has been scheduled for 9th April 2020. This is the process formally bringing NIA’s attention to an application for interim injunction, which application is receiving appropriate consideration.
It is striking to note that, whilst news reportage on the proceedings in court named not only the two lawyers for the applicants in the matter but also their clients, the reportage was eerily silent on the identity and/or credentials of the supposed lawyer who was reported to have represented the NIA in court.
As a public sector institution, the NIA welcomes public scrutiny, and indeed constructive criticism of its work, but not FAKE NEWS. Indeed, at the said proceedings in Court yesterday, NIA was not present, and no “NIA lawyer” was in attendance either. NIA was not even aware of when and where the matter was being heard. Being unaware of the ex parte motion, NIA was not in a position to appoint a lawyer to represent its interests in court. In the circumstances, no lawyer could have made, for and on behalf of the NIA, any of the statements attributed to a so-called “NIA lawyer”. NIA reject this kind of moribund journalism and fake stories apparently contrived for reasons other than a genuine public concern for its activities.