Nnamdi Kanu

Court rejects Nnamdi Kanu’s fresh bail application

of the Indigenous People of Biafra’s new bail application was denied by a Federal High Court in Abuja (IPOB).

Justice Binta Nyako ruled on Tuesday that the application, which was submitted by Kanu’s attorneys under the direction of Mike Ozekhome (SAN), was a misuse of the legal system.

Read Also : Blessing Okagbare’s ban extended

The application, according to Justice Nyako, was an effort to re-litigate a matter on which the court had already made a decision.

The judge advised the applicant that his best course of action if he disagreed with the court’s ruling was to file an appeal with the Court of Appeal.

Kanu had been granted bail by Justice Nyako in 2017, but it was later revoked because he had broken the bail’s terms.
Kanu is defending himself in court against a criminal accusation of treason.


Nnamdi Kanu has suffered setback as Court ruled on his rights suit against DSS.

 

The Federal High Court’s Abuja Division has dismissed the fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by the outlawed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader against the Department of State Services (DSS) on Friday .

The claim was dismissed by Justice Taiwo Taiwo because it lacked merit and substance.

Mr Kanu had sued the Director-General (DG) of DSS and the office as 1st and 2nd respondents, respectively, in a basic rights enforcement suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1585/2021, through his lawyer, Maxwell Opara.

Read Also : My wife died of lung cancer – Late Gospel singer’s husband tells Abuja High court

In the complaint dated and filed December 13, 2021, he also joined the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) as a third respondent.

Mr Nnamdi Kanu said that his health was deteriorating while in SSS custody, and that the medical personnel given to him by the DSS were incompetent, among other things.

However, the SSS, represented by Idowu Awo, disagreed with Mr Opara.

Pay Attention To : Uploading WAEC, NECO and NABTEB result on JAMB portal closing date

He went on to say that simply declaring that the medical professionals his office sent to Kanu were quacks did not constitute a conflict of interest, and that Opara had not shown any proof to substantiate that the listed medical practitioners were quacks.

 

He pleaded with the judge to dismiss the application.

Simon Enoch, the AGF’s counsel, backed up Awo’s claim, urging the court to dismiss Opara’s application.

Advertisements

Mr Taiwo, who delivered the verdict, stated that Kanu had not produced adequate evidence that the security outfit had violated his fundamental rights, “since there is no proof of torture before the court.”

Pay Attention To : Npower Latest News on payment of April, May and June Stipends Today Friday, June 3, 2022

While the applicant (Kanu) has the constitutional right to practice his religion in jail, the judge agreed with the respondent (DSS) that a suspect in custody cannot be allowed to practice his religion in a way that would disturb the quiet of other suspects in custody.

Mr Taiwo said that “the applicant fails to lead evidence by calling a medical practitioner to convince the court that the treatment given to Kanu is inadequate based on the medical report,” in response to the allegation that the IPOB leader was receiving inadequate treatment from DSS doctors, whom he had referred to as quacks.

As a result, the judge rejected the case because it lacked merit and substance.

Mr Opara stated shortly after the ruling that the decision would be appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The judge denied his plea to have the DG of SSS and Mr Kanu give oral evidence in court to determine the facts of the case, he said.

On March 16, Justice Taiwo dismissed Opara’s plea asking the court to summon the SSS Director General and Kanu to testify.

Also Read : Femi Fani-Kayode Breaks Silence about Tinubu’s claim of making Buhari President

In his judgement, Mr Taiwo stated that fundamental rights matters are exceptional cases (sui generis), using affidavit evidence being the manner of initiation as provided by Order 2, Rule 2 of the Fundamental Human Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules, 2009.

Mr Taiwo said Kanu (applicant) chose to start his lawsuit “under the Fundamental Right Enforcement Procedure Rules, which mandates affidavit evidence,” despite the fact that there were various ways of starting a case, including fundamental right cases.

He concluded that, after carefully reviewing all of the applicant’s and respondents’ affidavits before him, there were no irreconcilable inconsistencies in the affidavits.

As a result, the judge denied Mr Kanu’s application, and he was discharged as a result.

Advertisements

Previous articleNpower Batch C Stream 2 Salary/Stipends Payment Starting Date News
Next articleWhat Npower Pre-selected, Beneficiary, Applicant, And Shortlisted Mean Now?

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.