The Federal High Court in Abuja had on July 20 ordered the DSS to grant Kanu access to his personal physicians, dismissing the DSS objection to the prayer.

According to IPOB, Kanu is suspected to be suffering from an ear infection and needs surgery.

Counsel for the IPOB leader, Ifeanyi Ejiofor, told our correspondent in a phone conversation on Sunday that Kanu, who has been in detention since 2021, had access to his personal physicians and had been taken back into custody.

Ejiofor said, “He has been attended to, and after preliminary examinations, he was taken back.”

The lawyer, however, declined further comments on his health conditions, among others.

Ejiofor had tweeted on Saturday that Kanu met with his personal doctors in a hospital in Abuja outside the facility of the DSS.

Justice James Omotosho, in a judgment, held that Kanu’s suit lacked merit and ought to be dismissed.

The News Agency of Nigeria reports that Kanu, in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/482/2022 and filed by his lawyer, had sued the Director General of DSS, DSS, and the Attorney-General of the Federation as 1st to 3rd respondents respectively.

In the suit, the IPOB leader alleged that the DSS subjected him to different inhuman treatments, including denying him his right to wear any clothes of his choice like the Igbo traditional attire called  “Isi-Agu,” while in their facility or any time he appeared in court for his trial.

He alleged that the security outfit while allowing other inmates in their custody the freedom to choose and wear any clothes of their choice, was restricted to wearing only a single clothing.

The applicant also accused the DSS of subjecting him to torture, breaching his right to dignity, among others.

He, therefore, sought an order directing the respondents to allow him to put on any clothing of his choice while in the facility or when appearing in public, among other reliefs

But in a counter affidavit filed by the DSS and its DG, they urged the court to dismiss Kanu’s claim.

They said that their operatives had not and had never tortured Kanu either physically or mentally while in their custody.

According to the DSS, the applicant (Kanu) is kept in their facility where every other suspect is kept.

They said it was untrue that other suspects were allowed to put on any clothing of their choice, including Hausa and Yoruba traditional wear.

They said that the facility was not a recreational centre or traditional festival where Kanu and other suspects would be allowed to adore themselves in their respective traditional attires.

They argued that there is a Standard Operation Procedure (SOP) on dress code by persons in their facilities.

“That in line with global best practices, persons in the 1st and 2nd respondents’ facility are allowed to wear only plain clothes which do not bear symbols, writings, colours and insignias that are offensive to any religion, ethnic group or even the Nigeria state in general,” they said.

They accused Kanu’s family of bringing traditional attires and other clothing with Biafra insignias and pair of red shoes decorated with shining beads for him to wear in custody and also to attend court for his trial

According to DSS, the clothes have colours of the non-existing Biafra Republic, which is the subject matter of the applicant’s criminal trial.

They said the Isi-Agu attire, popularly called chieftaincy attire, was not a suitable dress for persons in detention facilities and was against its SOP.

They also argued that Justice Binta Nyako, where Kanu is currently standing trial, had directed that Kanu should be allowed to wear any plain clothing of his choice and that anything contrary would contravene the court’s directive.

The DSS said they never breached his right to human dignity as alleged by the IPOB leader.

Delivering the judgment, Justice Omotosho held that the right to human dignity is contained in Section 34 of the 1999 Constitution.

He said it was clear that a right to human dignity related to the right against torture, and inhuman treatment, among others.

The judge held that Kanu’s case did not relate to torture or forced labour as he was never tortured while in custody based on the evidence before the court.

He said a right to dignity was not a right to change clothes as an inmate in a prison.

“The applicant cannot come to court to seek rights which are not in the constitution,” he said.

Besides, Justice Omotosho held that Kanu failed to provide the photographs and names of inmates who were allowed to wear different attires while in custody.

He said the onus was on him to prove his case but the applicant merely rely on bare facts without any evidence.

He described the IPOB leader’s allegations as “a hypothesis without concrete evidence.”

The judge, consequently, dismissed the case for lacking merit.

Kanu, in a tweet posted by his legal counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, on Tuesday, said Biafra is non-negotiable.

Ejimakor tweeted, “Personal Message from Mazi Nnamdi Kanu: “I deeply appreciate the abiding solidarity of the people of Biafra & the entire IPOB noble family against my continued illegal detention.

“I assure you all that our pursuit of self determination to its logical conclusion is non-negotiable.”

Kanu was abducted from Kenya in 2021. Despite an order by the Appeal Court calling for his release, he has remained in custody of the Department of State Services in Abuja, till date.

The Federal Government had filed an appeal before the Supreme court, depicting its stand on the Biafran leader.

He was charged with treasonable felony, managing an unlawful society, publication of defamatory matter, among others.

Recall, about three days ago, civil rights advocacy group, Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria, appealed to President Tinubu to release Kanu, as a way to implement national reconciliation.

Enugu State Governor, Peter Mbah, has also urged the president to grant the IPOB leader’s release and hand him over to any of the South-East governors.

In his appeal, Mbah said, “We believe that his release will expedite the healing process Nigeria needs at this time.

“It will also be a pointer to his administration’s extension of brotherly hands of fellowship to Ndigbo.”

The governor had also announced that there’ll be no more “sit-at-home” in the state. The order was earlier given by the separatist group.

“It is also possible that the DSS has given him (Kanu) a slow-acting poison, which is why his health keeps deteriorating to eventually kill him.

“In what we consider a conspiracy to kill our leader, the Nigeria Supreme Court, the constitutional court refused to entertain an appeal from Kanu’s lawyers over his deteriorating health. Instead, the apex court gave a wicked long adjournment of four months in the case of an innocent man that appeal court Justices have discharged and acquitted.

In all these human right and court abuses, there seems to be a conspiratory silence among international organisations and her affiliate human rights organisations.

“As the health of our leader continues to deteriorate and the Federal Government refuses to obey lawful orders and the world maintains this criminal silence, IPOB will do all within our power to ensure that our leader does not die in detention. Freedom for Kanu is the freedom of the entire black race. Kanu is not a criminal. He is not a terrorist, nor has he been associated with Nigeria treasury looting, which Nigerian politicians are known for.

“We are telling the international community and African Union in particular not to blame IPOB for whatever becomes the aftermath of Nigeria’s continuous disobedience to both local and international laws in the case of Nnamdi Kanu now.

“We want the world to understand that IPOB is peaceful but understands our right of self-defence. The gentleness of a tiger should not be taken as cowardice. Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable. Our prayers are that the Nigerian government will do the needful on time because if our leader falls in the hands of Nigeria, then Nigeria and her leaders will fall in the hands of Biafra,” IPOB said.

When one of our correspondents asked the Minister of Information and Culture, Lai Mohammed, for comments, he declined to speak on the issue.

This was made known by the Secretary-General of the organisation, Mazi Okechukwu Isiguzoro.

Isiguzoro said the killings in the South-East would subside if Buhari allows the IPOB leader to address Nigerians.

Speaking on the activities of gunmen linked to Ekpa, the organisation’s Secretary-General reiterated his stance on a plot to destabilise the 2023 elections in the South-East using Ekpa.

According to Isiguzoro, “This madness of sit-at-home and incessant killings and insecurity we are witnessing in the Southeast can be traced to the continuous incarceration of Nnamdi Kanu, which Simon Ekpa is taking undue advantage of.

Ekpa is an opportunist, fame and fortune seeker who saw the window and lapses of Kanu’s detention as an opportunity for him to venture into his journey of amassing wealth from politicians and destroying the people of the South-East.

“The only cure to this madness of Simon Ekpa is a passionate appeal to the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to allow the leader of IPOB to address Ndigbo possibly this February before the elections, because there is a grand conspiracy by some external enemies of Ndigbo, and they are using Ekpa to shortchange and ensure that there is an election boycott in the South-East.

The only cure to this Ekpa’s madness is for Buhari to allow Kanu, even if it’s a five-minute broadcast because Kanu has continued to say through his lawyers that these killings and insecurity in the Southeast should end. 

The activities of unknown gunmen instigated by Ekpa should end, and why there has been no effect on those messages is that the people doubt if those messages are from Nnamdi Kanu.

“So, in order to have a peaceful election, the Federal Government should give Nnamdi Kanu a five-minute broadcast to talk to the people of the Southeast; this would end Ekpa and his madness.”

“My lord, I understand that the defendant declined to come to court today.

“As of last week, the defendant was intimated of this sitting and he did not object. However, when I called the office this morning, I was informed that the defendant woke up and declined to come to court.

“All entreaties and pleas were made but he refused to come to court”, the government lawyer told the court.

Kanu’s legal team, however, said the allegation was strange as Kanu had never hidden his intention to always be in court.

“My lord, this is totally strange to me because this is a person that has never hidden his intention to always be in court. In fact, even in processes we filed at both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, the defendant said he would want to be present in court for hearing of all the matters,” Kanu’s legal team head, Mike Ozekhome, SAN, said.

Kanu is standing trial of amended seven counts of terrorism filed against him by the FG.

The court led by Justice Binta Nyako, however, adjourned the matter indefinitely.

In an update, Kanu’s lawyer, Ifeanyi Ejiofor, said, “The court per His lordship Hon. Justice Binta Nyako, is in agreement with us that it lacks the jurisdiction to entertain any further charge against Kanu, in view of the landmark judgment of the Court of Appeal.

“The matter was consequently adjourned sine die pending the outcome of the appeal at the Supreme Court. We are winning! Supreme Court here we come! No going back on ONYENDU’s freedom.”

“Our appeal to set aside the order staying the execution of Onyendu’s judgment will be fixed for hearing any moment from now. We shall keep you all posted,” he said

The Court also ordered the Federal government to return him to Kenya from where he was extradited to Nigeria on June 19, 2021.

The Court presided by Justice E . N Anyadike, insisted that the extradition of Kanu from Kenya without recourse to the legal process was a flagrant abuse of his fundamental human rights.

He held that the respondent failed to disprove the claims of the applicant that he was arrested, blindfolded, tortured, and chained to the ground for eight days in Kenya before his extradition to Nigeria.

Kanu, through his special Counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, had approached the court challenging his extradition from Kenya on June 19, 2022.

Ejimakor told the court that the suit is sui generis (of a special class) and was primarily aimed at redressing the infamous unlawful expulsion or extraordinary rendition of Kanu, which is a clear violation of his fundamental rights under Article 12(4) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, as well as Chapter IV of the Nigerian Constitution.

He said, ‘In addition to the rendition, I am asking the Court to redress the myriad violations that came with the rendition, such as the torture, the unlawful detention and the denial of the right to fair hearing which is required by law before anybody can be expelled from one country to the other. “I am also seeking to halt his prosecution and restore him to the status quo before his rendition on 19th June 2021.

“You will recall that on January 19, 2022, the High Court of Abia State decided that portion of violation of Kanu’s fundamental rights that occurred in 2017. Even as I had made claims that bordered on rendition, the Court declined jurisdiction on grounds that rendition, being related to extradition, lies within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. This is what informed my decision to initiate the suit before the Federal High Court.

“To be sure, the extraordinary rendition of Nnamdi Kanu, triggered myriad legal questions that cut across multiple jurisdictions in Nigeria and even triggered the international legal order, to boot. In other words, the rendition has expanded the matter of Kanu far beyond the realms of the Abuja trial and opened up new legal frontiers that must be ventilated to the hilt before other courts and tribunals within and without Nigeria.

“Thus, this very case before the Federal High Court in Umuahia is one of such that is aimed at seeking a definitive judicial pronouncement on the constitutionality of the extraordinary rendition. The ones in the United Kingdom, Kenya, African Union, and the United Nations are in addition.

“I would like to seize this opportunity to express my profound appreciation to the highly competent and hardworking team of lawyers that I am leading in the prosecution of this complex suit. Special mention must be made of Barristers Patrick Agazie, Ifeyinwa Nworgu, Tochukwu Arugbuonye, Franklin Amandi, Ohaeto Uwazie and Mandela Umegborogu”.

“For ease of reference and avoidance of any doubt, the following are the specific reliefs that I requested in the suit”.

Speaking to journalists shortly after the judgment, Ejimakor said the judgment had shown that the court still remains the last hope for the common man. He called on the federal government to obey the court order and return Kanu to Kenya.

It asked the Supreme Court to set aside the judgement and restore the charge against the respondent to be tried at the trial court.

The government, in a motion on notice in support of the appeal, is also seeking a stay of execution of the judgment of the court presided over by Justice Jummai Sankey, pending the hearing and final determination of its appeal, noting that the IPOB leader posed a flight risk.

The notice of appeal dated October 18 was signed by the Director, Public Prosecution of the Federation, Mohammed Abubakar, Assistant Chief State Counsel, D. Kaswe and A. Aluko and Senior State Counsel, G. Nweze, Department of Public Prosecution, Federal Ministry of Justice.

The appellant averred that the appellate court erred in law when it held that the trial court had no jurisdiction to try Kanu because of “the extraordinary rendition of the respondent.”

It stated, “There was no evidence led by the respondent before the court of the first instance and indeed before the court below to show how he was allegedly abducted and rendered to Nigeria as required by Section 139 of the Evidence Act, 2011 since he alleged that he was abducted without following due process of law.”

The appellant also contended that the court below erred when it held that the executive arm must not be allowed to benefit from the abduction of the respondent “when in fact and by its judgment, the respondent was allowed to benefit from his illegality of disobeying the orders of the court when he jumped bail and was rewarded with a discharge from the charges pending against him at the trial court thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice against the state and the victims of the crimes perpetrated by the respondent.”

The government claimed that the appeal court was wrong by saying that how Kanu was brought back to the country can vitiate and indeed weaken the criminal charges of treason, treasonable felony and terrorism brought against him.

It added that the lower court made that decision without taking into account the fact that the nature of the “entry’’ of the respondent is not relevant in the determination of the charges against him.

The appellant further stated that the appeal court justices failed to be bound by established judicial precedent on the mode of “entry” of a defendant charged with the commission of an offence established by the Supreme Court.

The appeal court, the FG noted, misdirected itself when it relied heavily on the Organisation of African Unions Conventions on the Prevention and Combating of Terrorism, the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights and cases decided from foreign jurisdictions as against the substantive law covering the criminal procedure in Nigeria.

“The court below overlooked the submissions of the appellant with regards to the ACJA, 2015 which takes its taproot from the grundnorm Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) to the effect that it is the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 that governs the trial of every Nigerian charged with the commission of a crime, this failure occasioned the miscarriage of justice,’’ the appeal notice read

The FG further argued that the court below erred in law when it discharged the respondent of the offences mentioned in counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 15 bordering on terrorism offences contained in the amended charge dated January 14, 2022, and retained by the trial court for want of jurisdiction.

The appeal observed that the appellate court was completely silent and closed its eyes to the obvious fact of the issues which predate the rendition of the respondent because he was standing trial for conspiracy, and treasonable felony terrorism before his escape.

If the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal had taken into consideration the act of illegality of the respondent in jumping bail and the corresponding duty of the appellant to ensure his presence in court, the decision of the court would have been different,’’ the appeal read.

In an affidavit, Loveme Odubo of the Department of Public Prosecution, Federal Ministry of Justice, stated that Kanu has a history of jumping bail and may be difficult to secure if the appeal was not granted.

The affidavit read, “That the respondent is a flight risk person given his previous antecedent of jumping bail while standing trial.

“The respondent is a dual citizen of both Nigeria and Britain which will make it easy for him to move out of Nigeria and escape justice. That the respondent’s presence will be difficult to secure should the judgment of the court below is not overturned and set aside by the Supreme Court.

“There is a need to stay the execution of the judgment of this honourable court to avoid a situation where the judgment of the Supreme Court will be overreached and rendered nugatory.’’

Kanu was prosecuted by the Federal Government at the Federal High Court in Abuja on a 15 count charge bordering on treasonable felony and terrorism, offences he denied.

Kanu had faulted the ruling of Justice Binta Nyako of a Federal High Court, Abuja, which ordered him to answer seven out of the 15-count terrorism charge against him.

He had prayed the appellate court to quash the entire charges and set him free on various grounds including that the purported offences were not committed in Nigeria.

Kanu has repeatedly called for the breakaway of southern Nigeria to form the Republic of Biafra.

On October 2015, he was arrested by Nigerian authorities on an 11-count charge bordering on “terrorism, treasonable felony, managing an unlawful society, publication of defamatory matter, illegal possession of firearms and improper importation of goods, among others.”

He was granted bail on April 2017 for medical reasons.

However, Kanu fled the country in September 2017 after an invasion of his home by the military in Afara-Ukwu, near Umuahia, Abia State.

He was then sighted in Israel before relocating to London, UK. He has been under DSS detention since June 2021 when we was captured in Kenya and brought to Nigeria.

Vanguard reported that delivering its judgement on Thursday, October 13, the appellate court, in a decision by a three-man panel led by Justice Jummai Hanatu, said it was satisfied that FG flagrantly violated the law, when it forcefully rendered Kanu from Kenya to the country for the continuation of his trial.

The court held that the 15-count charge preferred against Kanu did not disclose the place, date, time and nature of the alleged offences before being unlawfully extradited to Nigeria in clear violation of international treaties.

It held that such extra-ordinary rendition, without adherence to due process of the law, was a gross violation of all international conventions, protocols and guidelines that Nigeria is signatory to, as well as a breach of the Appellant’s fundamental human rights.

The appellate court noted that FG failed to refute the allegation that the IPOB leader was in Kenya and that he was abducted and brought back to the country without any extradition proceeding.

The court also held that the Federal Government failed to disclose where Nnamdi Kanu was arrested despite the grave allegations of terrorism against him.

The ruling was confirmed by Kanu’s lead counsel, Ifeanyi Ejiofor.

“Appeal allowed , Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi KANU, discharged and acquitted. We have won! Victory victory victory victory.

Kanu, through his Counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, had approached the court, challenging his extradition from Kenya on June 19, 2022.

Ejimakor told the court that the suit was sui generis (of a special class) and was primarily aimed at redressing the infamous unlawful expulsion or extraordinary rendition of Kanu, which was an alleged violation of his fundamental rights under Article 12(4) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, as well as Chapter IV of the Nigerian Constitution.

He said, “In addition to the rendition, I am asking the court to redress the myriad violations that came with the rendition, such as the torture, the unlawful detention and the denial of the right to fair hearing which is required by law before anybody can be expelled from one country to the other.

“I am also seeking to halt his prosecution and restore him to the status quo before his rendition on June 19, 2021.

You will recall that on January 19, 2022, the High Court of Abia State decided that portion of violation of Kanu’s fundamental rights that occurred in 2017. Even as I had made claims that bordered on rendition, the court declined jurisdiction on grounds that rendition, being related to extradition, lied within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. This is what informed my decision to initiate the suit before the Federal High Court.

“To be sure, the extraordinary rendition of Nnamdi Kanu triggered myriad legal questions that cut across multiple jurisdictions in Nigeria and even triggered the international legal order, to boot. In other words, the rendition has expanded the matter of Kanu far beyond the realms of the Abuja trial and opened up new legal frontiers that must be ventilated before other courts and tribunals within and without Nigeria.

“Thus, this very case before the Federal High Court in Umuahia is one of such that is aimed at seeking a definitive judicial pronouncement on the constitutionality of the extraordinary rendition. The ones in the United Kingdom, Kenya, African Union and the United Nations are in addition.

“I would like to cease this opportunity to express my profound appreciation to the highly competent and hardworking team of lawyers that I am leading in the prosecution of this complex suit. Special mention must be made of Barristers Patrick Agazie, Ifeyinwa Nworgu, Tochukwu Arugbuonye, Franklin Amandi, Ohaeto Uwazie and Mandela Umegborogu.

The court presided by Justice E .N Anyadike, however, fixed judgement on the case for October 27, 2022.