The Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, on Friday, struck out an appeal filed by the convicted leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu.
In the appeal, the IPOB leader challenged what he described as the violations of his fundamental rights by the Director-General of the Department of State Services (DSS) and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF).
A three-member panel of the appellate court held that the appeal lacked merit and had become academic following Kanu’s conviction and life imprisonment sentence by the Federal High Court in Abuja on November 20.
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Boloukuromo Ugo said the claims of rights violations, including alleged denial of adequate medical care, dignity of person and freedom of religion, could no longer be entertained since Kanu was no longer in DSS custody but in a correctional facility.
Justice Ugo noted that Kanu’s lawyer, Maxwell Opara, had confirmed at the start of proceedings that his client was being held at the Sokoto Correctional Centre, making the request for transfer from DSS custody to Kuje prison irrelevant.
The judge added that Kanu had earlier indicated preference for prison custody, and therefore his prayers had been overtaken by events following his conviction and lawful remand.
The appeal challenged the July 3 judgment of retired Federal High Court judge, Justice Taiwo Taiwo, who dismissed Kanu’s fundamental rights enforcement suit for lack of proof.
The respondents in the case were the DSS Director-General, the DSS, and the AGF.
In the original suit filed in December 2021, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1585/2021, Kanu alleged deteriorating health while in DSS custody and claimed that medical personnel attending to him were unqualified.
However, DSS counsel, Idowu Awo, countered that Opara failed to present any evidence showing the medical personnel were “quacks.”
The AGF’s lawyer, Simon Enoch, also urged the court to dismiss the application.
In it’s judgment, the trial court held that Kanu had not provided credible evidence of torture, denial of religious freedom, or inadequate medical care.
The trial judge, Justice Taiwo, ruled that while detainees have the right to practise their religion, such practice must not infringe on the rights or peace of others in custody.
On the claim of inadequate medical attention, the judge noted that the applicant failed to call any medical expert to substantiate the allegations.
Consequently, the Federal High Court dismissed the suit for lacking in merit, a decision now upheld and affirmed by the Court of Appeal.
