- By Halimah Olamide
It was not a good day for the leader of the proscribed Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu at the court on Monday as the trial judge concluded he failed to prove that the state had violated his fundamental human rights.
Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court Abuja, delivering his verdict in a suit brought before him by Kanu, said it has not beeen established by Kanu’s lawyers how the Directorate of State Security violated his rights.
Kanu, in the suit, is seeking N1 billion in damages from the Attorney-General of the Federation and the Department of State Services, for alleged right violation.
Kanu, in the suit, marked: FHC/CS/1633/2023, claimed that the DSS and its Director-General violated his right to a fair hearing by allegedly preventing his lawyers from having unhindered interactions with him where he is being detained, in preparation for his defence in his criminal trial.
Omotosho, while delivering a judgment on the suit, held that Kanu failed to provide credible evidence to sustain his claims that his interactions with his lawyers were interfered with, that he was denied unhindered access to his lawyers and that DSS officials eavesdropped on his conversations with his lawyers, which constituted a breach of his right to a fair hearing.
Kanu had in an originating motion dated December 4, 2023, sued the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the AGF, the DSS, and its DG, as 1st to 4th respondents respectively.
His lawyer, Aloy Ejimakor, had demanded the enforcement of his fundamental rights while in the custody of the DSS.
The suit was filed under Order II, Rules 1 & 2 of the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules 2009, among others.
Kanu had prayed for “a declaration that the respondents’ act of forcible seizure and photocopying of confidential legal documents about facilitating the preparation of his defence which were brought to him at the respondents’ detention facility by his lawyers, amounted to a 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 the counsel’s professional discussions/consultations with him at DSS detention is unlawful and amounts to a denial of his right to be given adequate facilities for the preparation of his defence by legal practitioners of his own choice.