The Court Adjourned Nnamdi Kanu’s N1 billion Fundamental Rights Enforcement Suit
The Court Adjourned Nnamdi Kanu's N1 billion Fundamental Rights Enforcement Suit
The Federal High Court, Abuja, on Monday, again adjourned a N1 billion suit filed by Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), against the federal government until 18 March for hearing.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) had, on 8 January, reported that the judge, James Omotosho, rescheduled the hearing to today (Monday) due to Mr Kanu’s lawyer’s absence from court.
Upon resumed hearing on Monday, counsel for the defence, I.I. Hassan, told the court that they had yet to be served with processes in the matter.
But Mr Kanu’s lawyer, Alloy Ejimakor, said everything needed for the service of the processes on the defence had been provided. He wondered why the originating motion and other applications had yet to be served on the defence by the bailiff.
Mr Omotosho subsequently adjourned the matter until 18 March for the plaintiff to serve the defence in the suit.
NAN reports that Mr Kanu, through his lawyer, Mr Ejimakor, had filed the latest suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1633/2023 for the enforcement of his fundamental rights in detention.
Mr Kanu, a dual citizen of Nigeria and the United Kingdom, is being held by the SSS over charges of treasonable felony arising from his separatist campaigns for the secession of independent Biafra nation from Nigeria.
In the originating motion filed 4 December 2023, the applicant sued the Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN), the AGF, the State Secueity Service (SSS) and its Director-General as 1st to 4th respondents, respectively.
In the motion, the detained IPOB leader prayed for eight reliefs.
He sought “a declaration that the respondents’ act of forcible seizure and photocopying of confidential legal documents pertaining to facilitating the preparation of his defence which were brought to him at the respondents’ detention facility by his lawyers, amounted to denial of his rights to be defended by legal practitioners of his own choice.
He also sought “a declaration that the respondents’ act of refusing or preventing his counsel from taking notes of details of counsel’s professional discussions/consultations with him at SSS detention, with said discussions/consultations relating to preparation of his defence amounted to denial of his right to be given adequate facilities for the preparation of his defence by legal practitioners of his own choice.
“A declaration that the respondents’ act of eavesdropping on his confidential consultations/conversations with his lawyers on matters relating to preparation of his defence during the lawyers’ visitations amounted to denial of applicant’s right to be given adequate facilities for the preparation of his defence and to be.defended by legal practitioners of his own choice.”
He described the acts as illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional and constituted an infringement of his fundamental right to fair hearing as enshrined and guaranteed under Section 36(6)(b) & (c) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and Article 7(1)(c) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights.
Mr Kanu, therefore, sought an order of injunction restraining and prohibiting the respondents from their act of forcible seizure and photocopying of confidential legal documents brought to him at the detention facility by his lawyers.
“An order of injunction restraining and prohibiting the respondents from their act of refusing or preventing the applicant’s counsel from taking notes of details of counsel’s professional discussions/consultations with the applicant during the counsel’s visitation with the applicant at the premises of respondents’ detention facility.
“An order of injunction restraining and prohibiting the respondents from their act of eavesdropping on the applicant’s confidential consultations/conversations with his lawyers on matters relating to preparation of applicant’s defence during the lawyers’ visitations with the applicant at the detention facility.”
Kanu sought an order compelling the respondents to issue an official letter of apology to him for the infringement of his fundamental right to fair hearing.
He is also seeking an order mandating the respondents to jointly and severally pay the sum of N1 billion as damages for the mental, emotional, psychological and other damages he suffered as a result of the his rights’ breach.
The trial of Mr Kanu on charges of treasonable felony recently resumed before another judge of the Federal High Court in Abuja, Bintang Nyako, following a Supreme Court order.
The court fixed 19 March for continuation of trial.
