By Jane Okafor, Abuja
A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has dismissed a suit by the detained leader of the proscribed, Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu demanding N1billion damages for alleged right violation by the Federal Government of Nigeria(FRN), Attorney General of the Federation(AGF) and Department of State Service(DSS).
Kanu had through his lawyer, Aloy Ejimakor, approached the Abuja Court in the suit marked: FHC/CS/1633/2023 claimed that the DSS and its Director General infringed on his right to fair hearing by allegedly preventing his lawyers from having unfettered interactions with him in detention in preparation of his defence in his criminal trial.
The quartet of FRN, AGS, DSS, and its DG were listed as 1st to 4th respondents, respectively.
In the originating summons, the IPOB leader asked for eight reliefs, “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.”
The separatist group leader also asked the court to declare that the respondents’ act of preventing his counsel from taking notes on the details of counsel’s professional discussions/consultations with him at DSS detention facility as well as eavesdropping on his confidential consultations/conversations with his lawyers amounted to illegality and a denial of his right, among others.
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.
He also sought an order mandating the respondents to jointly and severally pay the sum of ₦1bn as damages for the mental, emotional, psychological, and other damages he suffered as a result of the breach of his rights, among others.
However, countering in an affidavit, the DSS denied all allegations by Kanu.
According to Channels Tv’s report, the application deposed to by Yamuje Benye, a legal department staffer, he said 11 paragraphs in Kanu’s affidavit were untrue.
He stated that Kanu was in safe and secured custody of the DSS, and that he was not detained in solitary confinement.
According to Benye, Kanu was allowed access to his family members and team of lawyers on his visiting days, without any hindrance whatsoever.
He argued that the IPOB leader was permitted to interact and consult with his lawyers on his visiting days without any interference.
He said at no time did any DSS personnel seize or confiscate documents brought to Kanu by his lawyers or any other person.
He added that their personnel never denied Kanu’s lawyers the professional liberty to perform their lawful duty of discussing, consulting, and interacting with his lawyers.
The applicant has consistently requested that various prayer books and religious materials be brought to him as part of his fundamental human right,” he said.
Benye added that Justice Binta Nyako, who is presiding over Kanu’s criminal trial, has always maintained that visits to him should always be under supervision, as it is the best practice all over the
According to him, mister Kanu, along with his counsel, was permitted to consult and interact on visiting days in one of the best interview facilities of the DSS to ensure maximum comfort of the applicant and his visitor(s).
The official, who denied allegations that the personnel usually record their interaction during visits, said “there is no basis for eavesdropping and recording of their conversations.”
He said, in line with the Service Standard Operation Procedure (SOP) of the State Security Service, all visitors to her facility are subjected to normal routine security checks, and items in their possession are scanned.
According to him, this is to avoid unauthorised materials making their way into the facility.
But in a judgment delivered on Monday, Justice James Kolawole Omotosho held that Kanu did not provide credible evidence to sustain his claims that his interactions with his lawyers were hindered, 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 fair hearing.
