The Abuja Division of the Federal High Court has fixed April 18 for a hearing in a N1 billion suit filed by Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), against the federal government and State Security Services (SSS).

Justice James Omotosho adjourned the matter after Mr Kanu’s counsel, Alloy Ejimakor, indicated his interest in responding to a counter affidavit jointly filed by the SSS and its director-general (DG).

Upon resumed hearing, Gbenga Oladimeji, who appeared for the federal government, informed the court that they were yet to file their response on behalf of the first and second defendants because he was only being notified about the process Monday morning, though they had been served since March 6.

Mr Oladimeji prayed for an adjournment to enable him to respond appropriately.

But the SSS lawyer, Abdul Danlami, said they had filed their counter affidavit in opposition to Mr Kanu’s plea.

Mr Ejimakor then sought an adjournment to enable him to file a further affidavit in response to fresh issues raised by the SSS in their counter affidavit, and Mr Omotosho adjourned the matter until April 18 for the adoption of processes.

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

In the originating motion dated and filed on December 4, the applicant sued the Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN), the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), SSS and its DG as first to fourth respondents, respectively.

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

In the motion, the detained IPOB leader prayed for eight reliefs, including “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 a denial of his rights to be defended by legal practitioners of his own choice.”

He also seeks an order mandating the respondents to jointly and severally pay the N1 billion as damages for the mental, emotional, psychological and other damages he suffered due to the breach of his rights.

But in a counter affidavit dated and filed by the SSS on March 12, the security outfit denied allegations against it.

In the application deposed to by Yamuje Benye, a member of the legal department staff, he said 11 paragraphs in Mr Kanu’s affidavit were untrue.

He averred that Mr Kanu was in safe and secured custody of the SSS, and he was not detained in solitary confinement.

According to Mr Benye, the applicant (Mr Kanu) is allowed access to his family members and team of lawyers on his visiting days without any hindrance whatsoever.

He argued that the IPOB leader could interact and consult with his lawyers on his visiting days without interference.

Mr Benye said at no time did any SSS personnel seize or confiscate documents brought to Mr Kanu by his lawyers or any other person.

He added that their personnel never denied Mr Kanu’s lawyers the professional liberty to perform their lawful duty of discussing, consulting and interacting with him.

“Applicant’s counsel are allowed to moderate-size notes or pads for the visit, but an exchange of materials that promote the IPOB ideals (subject matter of applicant’s criminal trial) was strongly resisted and refused; 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.

Mr Benye averred that Justice Binta Nyako, who is presiding over Mr 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 world.

According to him, the applicant (Mr Kanu), along with his counsel, was permitted to consult and interact on visiting days in one of the best interview facilities of the SSS to ensure maximum comfort for 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 entering the facility.

Mr Benye said the instant suit was an abuse of the court process. 

(NAN)