HEDA Appeals Ruling On ATC’s Base Stations Construction

The Incorporated Trustees of HEDA Resource Centre have appealed the judgment of the Federal High Court, Lagos, which struck out its application seeking to stop the planned construction of new base stations by ATC Nigeria Wireless Infrastructure Limited and MTN Communications Plc in close proximity to existing sites operated by other infrastructure operators.

In a statement issued in Lagos, the executive director of HEDA Resource Centre, Olanrewaju Suraju, while reacting to the verdict, stated that the decision of the Federal High Court was very odd and inconsistent with its earlier position that the Plaintiff had a cause of action in the preliminary objection brought by MTN on the same facts before the honourable court.

Suraju added that coming to conflicting conclusions on two similar applications exposes the decision of the trial judge, Justice Yelim Bogoro to a necessary challenge at the Court of Appeal which has been filed by HEDA Resource Centre.

He said, “We see this decision of the Federal High Court as very odd and inconsistent with the law. The reason is the fact that the same trial judge had admitted that there was a cause of action on the earlier application on the same set of facts brought by the fifth respondent, MTN.

“The court also in another application by the fourth respondent, ATC, which came much later affirmed the fact that HEDA Resource Centre, the Plaintiff had a cause of action.

“It is strange to us that His Lordship suddenly shifted his earlier position by saying there was no cause of action when nothing material has changed’’, he stated.

Suraju, while noting that given the noticeable inconsistency in the court ruling and possible grounds for appeal, said the judgment was also suggestive that a cause of action would arise if permits are issued to the defendants (ATC and MTN) or they take steps toward building new base station sites.

HEDA Resource Centre also said that the court ruling was indicative of the Federal Ministry of Environment’s position that its action should not be the basis of the suit, maintaining that the role of the ministry as a critical agency responsible for ensuring a safe, liveable environment could not be downplayed.