Court Adjourns Nnamdi Kanu’s N1 Billion Suit Against Fed Govt, DSS Till March 4

A Federal High Court in Abuja has scheduled additional proceedings for March 4 in a new N1 billion lawsuit brought by Nnamdi Kanu, the incarcerated leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), against the Federal Government and three other defendants.

The named defendants in the suit include the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), the Department of State Services (DSS), and its Director General.

Justice James Omotosho adjourned the hearing in the fundamental rights enforcement suit to a later date due to the absence of the applicant’s lawyer.

During the case mention, no legal representative announced an appearance for the applicant, whereas the respondents were represented by two lawyers – Enoch Simon (representing the Federal Government and the AGF) and I. Awo for the DSS.

Simon informed the court that his clients had only received the hearing notice and had not been served with the originating processes of the suit.

The lawyer said he was in court out of respect for the law.

Awo, who spoke in a similar manner, said: “We were not served as well.”

After hearing from the lawyers, Justice Omotosho adjourned the case to March 4 for further proceedings. He also directed that a hearing notice be issued and served on the applicant.

In the suit filed on behalf of Kanu by his lawyer, Aloy Ejimakor, the IPOB leader is seeking a declaration that the respondents’ action of forcibly seizing and photocopying confidential legal documents related to the preparation of his defense, brought to him at the detention facility by his lawyers, amounted to a denial of his rights to be defended by legal practitioners of his own choice.

Additionally, Nnamdi Kanu sought a declaration that the respondents’ actions of refusing or preventing his counsel from taking notes during discussions or consultations with him at the DSS detention facility, especially when such discussions pertained to the preparation of his defense, constituted a denial of his right to be provided with adequate facilities for the preparation of his defense by legal practitioners of his own choice, among other claims.