A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has Reserved Judgment In Nnamdi Kanu’s Case Seeking An Order Of Court To Allow Him Unhindered Access To His Medical Doctor To 20th July, 2023.
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.
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 of led by Ozekhome, had sued the DSS and its Director General as 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 have 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 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.
He argued that the instant suit was similar to the earlier one and that Kanu had filed an appeal against the judgment.
Following the presumption of 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 disregarded by the DSS.
The legal luminary argued that the act was against Section 7 of the Anti-Torture Act.
He state 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 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 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, stated that a further affidavit was also filed in the suit, said two exhibits were attached to it.
He said 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.
“What we they lose to allow an independent doctor to examine him in their presence? ” he asked
“We rely on all the processes to humbly request you to 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 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 facts of his case disclose multiple cause of actions.
In his argument, Danlami urged the court to dismiss Kanu’s plea for lack of jurisdiction.
The lawyer argued that 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 case until July 20 for judgment.
