Fresh Adjournment in Nnamdi Kanu’s N1bn Suit Against FG, DSS

The hearing was adjourned when no legal representation appeared for Kanu

Nnamdi Kanu

On Monday, a Federal High Court in Abuja once again postponed the hearing of a new N1 billion lawsuit brought by Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), against the Federal Government. The case is now scheduled for March 18.

Earlier scheduled for today, the hearing was adjourned when no legal representation appeared for Kanu.

Upon resuming, the defense counsel, I.I. Hassan, informed the court that they had not been served with the necessary documents for the case.

However, Kanu’s lawyer, Alloy Ejimakor, asserted that all required procedures for serving the defense had been completed. He expressed confusion as to why the bailiff had not served the originating motion and other applications on the defense.

Consequently, Justice James Omotosho adjourned the matter to March 18, directing the plaintiff to serve the defense.

He sought “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 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 counsel’s professional discussions/consultations with him at DSS detention, with said discussions/consultations relating to the preparation of his defence amounted to a denial of his right to be given adequate facilities for the preparation of his defence by legal practitioners of his own choice.

“A declaration that the respondents’ act of eavesdropping on his confidential consultations/conversations with his lawyers on matters relating to the preparation of his defence during the lawyers’ visitations amounted to a denial of the applicant’s right to be given adequate facilities for the preparation of his defence and to be defended by legal practitioners of his own choice.”

He described the acts as illegal, unlawful, and unconstitutional. He constituted an infringement of his fundamental right to a fair hearing as enshrined and guaranteed under Section 36(6)(b) & (c) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and Article 7(1)(c) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights.

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.

“An order of injunction restraining and prohibiting the respondents from their act of refusing or preventing the applicant’s counsel from taking notes of details of counsel’s professional discussions/consultations with the applicant during the counsel’s visitation with the applicant at the premises of respondents’ detention facility.

“An order of injunction restraining and prohibiting the respondents from their act of eavesdropping on the applicant’s confidential consultations/conversations with his lawyers on matters relating to the preparation of the applicant’s defence during the lawyers’ visitations with the applicant at the detention facility.”

The case remains pending as Kanu seeks legal redress for alleged infringements of his rights.

Exit mobile version