The Federal High Court in Abuja has rescheduled further hearing for March 4 in the fresh N1 billion suit filed by the detained leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, against the Federal Government and three others….CONTINUE READING....KINDLY READ THE FULL STORY HERE▶

The other parties involved in the suit are the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), the Department of State Services (DSS), and its Director-General.

Justice James Omotosho postponed the hearing in the fundamental rights enforcement suit on Monday due to the absence of the applicant’s lawyer.

During the case mention, no lawyer appeared for the applicant, while the respondents were represented by two lawyers – Enoch Simon (for the Federal Government and the AGF) and I. Awo for the DSS.

Simon informed the court that his clients were only served with the hearing notice and have not been served with the suit’s originating processes. He stated that he came to court out of respect for the court.

Awo, who spoke similarly, said, “We were not served as well.”

Upon hearing the lawyers, Justice Omotosho adjourned the case till March 4 for hearing and ordered that a hearing notice be issued and served on the applicant.

In the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1633/2023 filed for Kanu by his lawyer, Aloy Ejimakor, he is seeking a declaration that the respondents’ act of forcibly seizing and photocopying confidential legal documents relating to facilitating the preparation of his defense amounted to a denial of his rights to be defended by legal practitioners of his choice.

Other reliefs being sought include:

1. A declaration that the respondents’ act of refusing or preventing his counsel from taking notes of details of counsel’s professional discussions/consultations with him at DSS detention amounts to a denial of his right to be given adequate facilities for the preparation of his defense by legal practitioners of his own choice.
2. A declaration that the respondents’ act of eavesdropping on his confidential consultations/conversations with his lawyers on matters relating to preparation of his defense during the lawyers’ visitations amounts to a denial of the applicant’s right to be given adequate facilities for the preparation of his defense and to be defended by legal practitioners of his own choice.
3. An order of injunction restraining and prohibiting the respondents from refusing or preventing the applicant’s counsel from taking notes of details of counsel’s professional discussions/consultations with the applicant during the counsel’s visitation with the applicant at the premises of the respondents’ detention facility.
4. An order of injunction restraining and prohibiting the respondents from eavesdropping on the applicant’s confidential consultations/conversations with his lawyers on matters relating to preparation of applicant’s defense during the lawyers’ visitations with the applicant at the detention facility.
5. An order compelling the respondents to issue an official letter of apology to him for the infringement of his fundamental right to fair hearing.
6. An order mandating the respondents to jointly and severally pay the sum of N1 billion as damages for the mental, emotional, psychological, and other damages he suffered as a result of the breach of his rights.