IPOB
Nnamdi Kanu’s Lawsuit against DSS will be decided by the Court on July 20.
Nnamdi Kanu’s Lawsuit against DSS will be decided by the court on July 20.
Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), a group that has been declared illegal, filed a lawsuit against the Department of State Services (DSS) asking for an order granting him unrestricted access to his doctor. A Federal High Court in Abuja set July 20 for a ruling in the case.
Justice Binta Nyako fixed the date after Kanu’s counsel, Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, and lawyer to the DSS, A.M. Danlami, adopted their processes and presented their arguments for and against the suit.
Recall that Kanu, through his team of lawyers led by Ozekhome, had sued the DSS and its Director General as the first and second respondents in the matter.
Kanu, in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2341/2022, prayed to the court for permission to apply for an order of mandamus to compel the DSS to allow him to have unhindered access to his medical doctor, among others.
The court had, on Feb. 1, granted Kanu permission to apply for an order of mandamus he sought after an ex-parte motion moved by Ozekhome to the effect.
But in a preliminary objection filed by the DSS, the security outfit urged the court to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction.
It argued that there was a subsisting judgement of a sister court delivered by Justice Taiwo Taiwo (rtd.) on June 3, 2022, in suit number: FHC/ABJ/CS/1585/2021 between Kanu and DG of DSS and two others, wherein the court dealt substantially with the issue of allowing the IPOB leader access to his personal physician.
It said the instant suit was similar to the earlier one and that Kanu had filed an appeal against the judgement.
Upon resumed hearing, Ozekhome told the court that the motion dated Feb. 2, was served on the respondent’s Feb. 3, seeking an order of mandamus against the respondents to allow the IPOB leader unfettered access to his doctor in accordance with the earlier order of Justice Nyako, which he alleged had been flouted by the DSS.
The senior lawyer argued that the act was against Section 7 of the Anti-Torture Act.
He said 10 exhibits were attached to the affidavit, and two of the exhibits detailed Kanu’s medical report before he was renditioned on June 27, 2021, and a medical report of his present health status.
He said their application was that an independent doctor should be allowed to attend to him in the presence of the security operatives.
He further argued that a defendant, based on the provisions of the law, should stand his trial and not be in a wheelchair while being prosecuted.
“We asked if we could see his medical report, and they are refusing, and if he dies, this will cause a national commotion,” he said.
Ozekhome, who said that a further affidavit was also filed in the suit, said two exhibits were attached to it.
According to him, one of the exhibits is a certified true copy of the judgement of the Federal High Court in Umuahia.
“In the judgement, the court awarded the sum of N500 million in damages against the respondents for an illegal rendition of the defendant from Keyan to Nigeria,” he added.
Besides, he said a Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja exonerated him in a judgement when it dismissed the remaining seven counts after Justice Nyako struck out eight counts from the 15-count charge earlier preferred against him.
“What do they lose by allowing an independent doctor to examine him in their presence,” he said.
“We rely on all the processes to humbly request that you grant our omnibus prayers,” he said.
He dismissed allegations that Kanu jumped bail on April 25, 2017, after the court granted him bail.
The lawyer, who argued that Kanu, rather, escaped a military invasion at his residence, said as soon as he got to Israel, he deposed to an affidavit to the effect.
Contrary to the DSS’ argument that the matter was similar to the earlier one decided by retired Justice Taiwo, Ozekhome argued that the claims, the subject matters, and the parties in the two matters were different.
“We filed a counter of five paragraphs. In the instant case, there are two respondents, but in the suit they referred to, there were three respondents.
“So on the issue of parties, they failed.
“On subject matter, this suit is seeking an order of judicial review by way of mandamus, but in the other suit, it was filed for the enforcement of his fundamental rights and not judicial reviews.
“The former suit sought 11 reliefs, but ours has two reliefs,” he said.
He argued that the law allowed that an aggrieved party could file more than one case where the facts of his case disclose multiple causes of action.
On his part, Danlami urged the court to dismiss Kanu’s plea for lack of jurisdiction.
The lawyer said in their counter-affidavit with four exhibits, one of the exhibits showed that Kanu was physically and clinically sound.
“We urge my lord to dismiss this suit in the interest of justice and the national interest,” he said.
The judge adjourned the matter until July 20 for judgement.
