The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has condemned the demolition of Fresh FM building, owned by popular musician, Yinka Ayefele.
In a statement on Sunday by its Deputy Director, Timothy Adewale, SERAP described the demolition as unlawful and a “grave violation of fundamental human rights and contrary to international law.”
The Organisation (SERAP) also said that the action was politically motivated adding that it will be challenged in court.
It, however, insisted that the Oyo State Government should ensure appropriate repairs of the building and adequate compensation.
Adewale said, “This is a gross abuse of powers by the Oyo State government and governor Ajimobi against a radio station simply doing their job. The action is politically motivated, patently arbitrary and entirely inconsistent with international human rights standards and national laws.
“The action amounts to executive rascality and seriously undermines the integrity and authority of our courts. This kind of action has no place in a democratic society that is based on the rule of law.
“The action amounts to executive rascality and seriously undermines the integrity and authority of our courts. This kind of action has no place in a democratic society that is based on the rule of law.
“The destruction of a radio station on the grounds that the Oyo state government dislikes their work is a textbook case of repression of media freedom and violation of the right to adequate housing.
“The authorities must immediately stop the demolition, ensure appropriate repairs of the building and adequate compensation, and guarantee of non-repetition.
“SERAP will challenge this violent and reckless destruction of Ayefele’s Fresh FM in court,” the statement read in part.
Government bulldozers arrived at the Music House in the early hours of Sunday to commence the demolition.
According to SERAP, the government went ahead with the process despite a court order to stop the demolition.
SERAP further explained that Ayefele had sued the Oyo State government, and the court had ruled that “there were serious issues to be determined” and therefore, adjourned the case to August 20, noting that the state government had been duly served.
