NewsReports

BREAKING: Court Dismisses Nnamdi Kanu’s N1bn Suit Against FG 

Justice James Omotoso of a Federal High Court, Abuja has just dismissed a N1 billion suit filed by the. detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, against the Federal Government and the  Department of State Services (DSS).

The Judge held in his judgment that the IPOB leader failed to show evidence that his conversation with his lawyers was bugged by the DSS or that his lawyers were stopped from taking notes from him during the conversation.

Court Nnamdi Kanu, Kanu's lawyers threaten to pull out, Kanu's counsel alleges persecution by FG, Nnamdi Kanu health

Justice Omotoso therefore held that there was no evidence before him to show that he was denied a fair hearing as claimed in his suit.

Consequently, the court dismissed the suit for lacking in merit.

Kanu had, through his lawyer, Aloy Ejimakor, filed the N1b illion suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1633/2023 for the enforcement of his fundamental rights while in detention.

In the originating motion dated and filed December 4, 2023, the applicant sued the Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN), Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), DSS and its DG as 1st to 4th respondents respectively.

The suit was filed pursuant to Order II, Rules 1 & 2 of the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules 2009, among others.

In the motion, the detained IPOB leader prayed for, “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 the counsel’s professional discussions/consultations with him at DSS detention.

This, he said, amounted to denial of his right to be given adequate facilities for the preparation of his defence by legal practitioners of his own choice.

TRIBUNE