Nnamdi Kanu Seeks court Order against DSS grant him access to his Doctor

A Federal High Court, Abuja has fixed July 20 for judgment in a suit filed by Nnamdi Kanu, Leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), against the Department of State Services (DSS) seeking an order to allow him unhindered access to his medical doctor.

Justice Binta Nyako fixed the date after Kanu’s counsel, Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, and lawyer to the DSS, A.M. Danlami, adopted their processes and presented their arguments for and against the suit. The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Kanu, through his team of lawyers led by Ozekhome, had sued the DSS and its Director General as 1st and 2nd respondents in the matter. Kanu, in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/ 2341/2022, prayed the court for permission to apply for an order of mandamus to compel the DSS to allow him have unhindered access to his medical doctor, among others. The court had, on Feb.

 1, granted Kanu, the permission to apply for an order of mandamus he sought after an ex-parte motion moved by Ozekhome to the effect. But in a preliminary objection filed by the DSS, the security outfit urged the court to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction. It argued that there was a subsisting judgement of a sister court delivered by Justice Taiwo Taiwo (rtd.) on June 3, 2022 in suit number: FHC/ABJ/CS/1585/2021 between Kanu and DG of DSS and two others wherein the court dealt substantially with the issue of allowing the IPOB leader access to his personal physician. 

 It said the instant suit was similar to the earlier one and that Kanu had filed an appeal against the judgment. Upon resumed hearing, Ozekhome told the court that the motion dated Feb. 2, was served on the respondents Feb. 3, seeking for an order of mandamus against the respondents to allow the IPOB leader unfettered access to his doctor in accordance with the earlier order of Justice Nyako, which he alleged had been flouted by the DSS. 

 The senior lawyer argued that the act was against Section 7 of the Anti-Torture Act. He said 10 exhibits were attached to the affidavit and two of the exhibits detailed Kanu’s medical report before he was renditioned on June 27, 2021 and medical report of his present health status. He said their application was that an independent doctor should be allowed to attend to him in the presence of the security operatives. He further argued that a defendant, based on the provisions of the law, should stand his trial and not to be on wheelchair while being prosecuted. “We asked if we could see his medical report and they are refusing and if he dies, this will cause national commotion,” he said. Ozekhome, who said that a further affidavit was also filed in the suit, said two exhibits were attached to it. According to him one of the exhibits is a certified true copy of the judgment of a Federal High Court, Umuahia. “In the judgment, the court awarded the sum of N500 million damages against the respondents for illegal rendition of the defendant from Keyan to Nigeria,” he added. 

 Besides, he said a Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja had exonerated him in a judgment when it dismissed the remaining seven counts after Justice Nyako struck out eight counts from the 15-count charge earlier preferred against him “What we they lose to allow an independent doctor to examine him in their presence,” he said. “We rely on all the processes to humbly request you to grant our omnibus prayers,” he said. He dismissed allegations that Kanu jumped bail on April 25, 2017 after the court granted him bail. The lawyer, who argued that Kanu, rather, escaped a military invasion at his residence, said as soon as he got to Israel, he deposed to an affidavit to the effect. Contrary to the DSS’ argument that the matter was similar to the earlier one decided by retired Justice Taiwo, Ozekhome argued that the claims, the subject matters and the parties in the two matters were different. 

 “We filed a counter of five paragraphs. In the instant case, there are two respondents, but in the suit they referred to, there were three respondents. “So on the issue of parties, they failed. “On subject matter, this suit is seeking an order of judicial review by way of mandamus but in the other suit, it was filed for the enforcement of his fundamental rights and not judicial reviews. “The former suit sought 11 reliefs but ours has two reliefs,” he said He argued that the law allowed that an aggrieved party could filed more than one case where facts of his case disclose multiple cause of actions. On his part, Danlami urged the court to dismiss Kanu’s plea for lack of jurisdiction. The lawyer said in their counter affidavit with four exhibits, one of the exhibit showed that Kanu was physically and clinically sound.

 “We urge my lord to dismiss this suit in the interest of justice and national interest,” he said. The judge adjourned the matter until July 20 for judgment.(NAN)

The Federal High Court in Abuja has scheduled July 20th as the date for delivering a verdict in the lawsuit brought by Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), against the Department of State Services (DSS). Kanu is seeking an order that would grant him unrestricted access to his medical doctor. The judgment date was set after arguments were presented by Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, representing Kanu, and A.M. Danlami, the lawyer for the DSS.

NAN (News Agency of Nigeria) reported that Kanu, represented by a team of lawyers led by Ozekhome, filed the lawsuit against the DSS and its Director General as the first and second respondents respectively. In the suit with the reference number FHC/ABJ/CS/2341/2022, Kanu requested the court's permission to apply for an order of mandamus to compel the DSS to grant him unhindered access to his medical doctor, among other requests.

On February 1st, the court granted Kanu permission to apply for the order of mandamus he sought after an ex-parte motion presented by Ozekhome. However, the DSS filed a preliminary objection, urging the court to dismiss the suit due to lack of jurisdiction. The DSS argued that there was already a judgment from another court, delivered by Justice Taiwo Taiwo (rtd.) on June 3rd, 2022, in a previous suit between Kanu and the DSS, which extensively addressed the issue of granting the IPOB leader access to his personal physician. The DSS also mentioned that Kanu had filed an appeal against that judgment.

During the resumed hearing, Ozekhome informed the court that a motion dated February 2nd had been served on the respondents on February 3rd. The motion sought an order of mandamus against the respondents, requesting that the IPOB leader be allowed unrestricted access to his doctor in accordance with the earlier order from Justice Nyako, which Ozekhome claimed had been disregarded by the DSS. The senior lawyer argued that such disregard violated Section 7 of the Anti-Torture Act.

Ozekhome presented ten exhibits attached to the affidavit, two of which contained Kanu's medical report before his rendition on June 27th, 2021, and his present health status report. The application requested that an independent doctor be permitted to attend to Kanu in the presence of security operatives. The lawyer further contended that, according to the law, a defendant should stand trial without being in a wheelchair.

Ozekhome expressed concerns about the DSS's refusal to disclose Kanu's medical report, stating that it could lead to national uproar if he were to die. He mentioned that a further affidavit was also filed in the case, with two additional exhibits. One of the exhibits was a certified true copy of a judgment from a Federal High Court in Umuahia, which awarded N500 million in damages against the respondents for the illegal rendition of the defendant from Kenya to Nigeria. Ozekhome also highlighted that the Court of Appeal in Abuja had acquitted Kanu of seven counts, after Justice Nyako had struck out eight counts from the original 15-count charge against him.

Regarding the DSS's argument that the current suit was similar to the previous one decided by retired Justice Taiwo, Ozekhome countered that the claims, subject matters, and parties involved in the two cases were different. He emphasized that the current suit sought an order of judicial review through mandamus, while the previous suit focused on the enforcement of Kanu's fundamental rights, rather than judicial reviews. Additionally, he clarified that the previous suit sought 11 reliefs, whereas the current

3 / 3

1. • Danlami, in response, requested the court to dismiss Kanu's plea due to jurisdictional limitations.

2. "The lawyer said in their counter affidavit with four exhibits, one of the exhibits showed that Kanu was physically and clinically sound."

   • The lawyer stated in their opposing affidavit, supported by four exhibits, that one of the exhibits provided evidence of Kanu's physical and clinical well-being.

3. "We urge my lord to dismiss this suit in the interest of justice and national interest," he said.

   • He urged the judge to dismiss the lawsuit in the name of justice and national interest.

4. "The judge adjourned the matter until July 20 for judgment."

   • The judge postponed the proceedings and set the date for the judgment as July 20th

reph"Danlami, representing the DSS, requested the court to dismiss Kanu's plea on the grounds of lacking jurisdiction."

1. "In their counter affidavit, accompanied by four exhibits, the lawyer argued that one of the exhibits demonstrated Kanu's physical and clinical fitness."

2. "He pleaded with the judge to dismiss the lawsuit, emphasizing that it would serve the interests of justice and the nation."

3. "The judge postponed the proceedings and scheduled the judgment for July 20th."

4.