Court to hear Nnamdi Kanu’s fundamental rights suit Feb. 28

92

A Federal High Court, Abuja, on Monday, fixed Feb. 28 to hear a fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by the Leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu.

Justice Taiwo Taiwo fixed the date after counsel to the Department of State Services (DSS), Idowu Awo, informed the court that his clients had a counter affidavit which had not been served on Kanu.

Awo, at the resumed hearing prayed the court for more time to effect the service of the application on Kanu’s lawyer, Maxwell Opara.

But Opara described the request of the DSS lawyer as an attempt to continue to subject his client to solitary confinement and other inhuman treatments.

He argued that the counter affidavit by the DSS was already filed out of time.

He said even though the application was dated Jan. 28 and counsel to the DSS has his contact, it was not served on him until now.

Also the lawyer to the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Simon Enock, informed that he had filed a motion for an extension of time to regularise their counter affidavit.

The application was neither opposed to by counsel to the IPOB leader, Opara nor the DSS lawyer.

Justice Taiwo, who noted that the matter was coming before him for the first time, fixed the matter until Feb. 28 for hearing.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Kanu, through his lawyer, Opara, had in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1585/2021, sued the Director-General of DSS and the office as 1st and 2nd respondents respectively.

He also joined the AGF as 3rd respondent in the suit dated and filed Dec. 13, 2021.

In the originating motion, his lawyer prayed the court to declare that the respondents while carrying out their lawful duties should abide by the provisions of Chapter 4 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the Africa Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act; as regards the rights of citizens of Nigeria.

Opara also urged the court to declare that Kanu, even though a detainee, was entitled to enjoy his freedom of thought, conscience and religion as guaranteed by thr law.

He sought: “A DECLARATION that the applicant, even though a detainee, is entitled to the enjoyment of his right to dignity of human person as guaranteed under Sections 34(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

“A DECLARATION that the respondents action in continuing to keep the applicant in their detention facility, without transferring him to Kuje Correctional Centre, is subjecting the applicant to mental torture given that it is not the place designated for keeping awaiting trial inmates,” among others.

The lawyers then asked the court to make an order directing the respondents to immediately allow Kanu access to facility and material for the practice of his religion and an order directing them to remove him from solitary confinement, among others.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept

Dental Implant