The Federal High Court granted Nnamdi Kanu’s application to have unhindered access to a medical doctor of his choice outside the facilities of the Department of State Security (DSS) and all his medical records made available to him.
The Federal High Court granted Nnamdi Kanu’s application to have unhindered access to a medical doctor of his choice outside the facilities of the Department of State Security (DSS) and all his medical records made available to him.
Nnamdi Kanu, Leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), filed a suit against the Department of State Services (DSS) seeking an order to allow him unhindered access to his medical doctor.
The Chronicle reported that the Federal High Court Reserved Judgement In Nnamdi Kanu’s Case Seeking An Order Of Court To Allow Him Unhindered Access To His Medical Doctor until July 20, 2023.
The Presiding Judge, Justice Binta Nyako, fixed the date for delivering judgement 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.
Kanu, through his legal team led by Ozekhome, had sued the DSS and its Director General as the 1st and 2nd respondents in the suit.
In the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2341/2022, Kanu prayed the court for permission to apply for an order of mandamus to compel the DSS to allow him unhindered access to his medical doctor, among others.
However, in a preliminary objection filed by the DSS, the security outfit prayed the court to dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction.
It was 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 the DG of DSS and two others, wherein the court dealt substantially with the issue of allowing the IPOB leader access to his personal physician.
He argued that the instant suit was similar to the earlier one and that Kanu had filed an appeal against the judgement.
Following the presumption of hearing, Ozekhome told the court that the motion dated Feb. 2 was served on the respondents on Feb. 3, seeking 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 disregarded by the DSS.
The legal luminary argued that the act was against Section 7 of the Anti-Torture Act.
He states that 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 a medical report of his present health status.
He stated in their application that an independent doctor should be allowed to attend to him in the presence of the security operatives.
Furthermore, he argued that a defendant, based on the provisions of the law, should stand his trial and not be in a 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 stated that a further affidavit was also filed in the suit and that two exhibits were attached to it.
He said one of the exhibits is a certified true copy of the judgement of the Federal High Court in Umuahia.
“In the judgement, the court awarded the sum of N500 million in damages against the respondents for the illegal rendition of the defendant from Keyan to Nigeria,” he added.
“What do they lose by allowing an independent doctor to examine him in their presence?” he asked.
“We rely on all the processes to humbly request that you grant our omnibus prayers,” he added.
He, however, dismissed allegations that Kanu jumped bail on April 25, 2017, after the court granted him bail.
He argued that Kanu did not jump bail. Rather, he escaped a military invasion at his house. He further said that as soon as he got to Israel, he deposed to an affidavit to the effect.
Addressing 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 not the same.
“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 stipulates that an aggrieved party can file more than one case where the facts of his case disclose multiple causes of action.
In his argument, Danlami urged the court to dismiss Kanu’s plea for lack of jurisdiction.
The lawyer argued that in their counteraffidavit with four exhibits, one of the exhibits showed that Kanu was physically and clinically sound.
“We urge my lord to dismiss this suit in the interest of justice and the national interest,” he said.
