Connect with us

Judiciary

Alleged Human Rights Breach: Court Dismisses Nnamdi Kanu’s Suit Against DSS

Published

on

Nnamdi-Kanu
Nnamdi Kanu
Share

Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, has dismissed a fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, against the Department of State Services (DSS).

Delivering Judgement, Justice Omotosho held that Kanu’s suit lacked merit and ought to be dismissed.

Justice Omotosho held that right to human dignity is contained in Section 34 of the 1999 Constitution. He said it was clear that a right to human dignity related to right against torture, inhuman treatment, among others.

The judge held that Kanu’s case did not relate to torture or forced labour as he was never tortured while in custody based on the evidence before the court.

He said a right to dignity was not a right to change clothes as inmate in a prison.
“The applicant cannot come to court to seek for rights which are not in the constitution,” he said.

Besides, Justice Omotosho held that Kanu failed to provide the photographs and names of inmates who were allowed to wear different attires while in custody.

He said the onus was on him to prove his case but the applicant merely rely on bare facts without any evidence.

He described the IPOB leader’s allegations as “an hypothesis without concrete evidence.”

The judge, consequently, dismissed the case for lacking in merit.

Nnamdi Kanu had sued the Director General of DSS, DSS and the Attorney-General of the Federation.

In the suit, the IPOB leader alleged that the DSS subjected him to different inhuman treatments, including denying him of his rights to wear any clothes of his choice like the Igbo traditional attire called “Isi-Agu,” while in their facility or any time he appeared in court for his trial.

He alleged that the security outfit while allowing other inmates in their custody the freedom to choose and wear any clothes of their choice, he was restricted to wearing only a single cloth.

The applicant also accused the DSS of subjecting him to torture, breaching his right to dignity, among others.

He, therefore, sought an order directing the respondents to allow him put on any clothe of his choice while in the facility or when appearing in public, among other reliefs.

But in a counter affidavit filed by the DSS and its DG, they urged the court to dismissed Kanu’s claim.

They said that their operatives had did not and had never tortured Kanu either physically or mentally while in their custody.

According to the DSS, Kanu is kept in their facility where every other suspects are kept.

They said it was untrue that other suspects were allowed to put on any clothe of their choice, including Hausa and Yoruba traditional wears.

They said that the facility was not a recreational centre or traditional festival where Kanu and other suspects would be allowed to adore themselves in their respective traditional attires.

They accused Kanu’s family of bringing traditional attires and other clothings with Biafra insignias and pair of red shoes decorated with shinning beads for him to wear in custody and also to attend court for his trial.

According to DSS, the clothes have colours of the non-existing Biafra Republic, which is the subject matter of applicant’s criminal trial.

They said the Isi-Agu attire, popularly called a chieftaincy attire, was not a suitable dress for persons in detention facility and against its SOP.

They also argued that Justice Binta Nyako, where Kanu is currently standing trial, had directed that Kanu should be allowed to wear any plain clothe of his choice and that any thing contrary would contravene the court’s directive.

The DSS said they never breached his right to human dignity as alleged by the IPOB leader.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Judiciary

Taraba Court Jails Four for Life Over Staged Kidnapping Scheme

Published

on

Court-symbol
Court-symbol
Share

In a landmark ruling that underscores the judiciary’s zero tolerance for kidnapping in any form, a Taraba State High Court on Friday sentenced four individuals to life imprisonment for orchestrating a staged abduction scheme aimed at extorting millions from their families.

Presided over by the State Chief Judge, Justice Joel Agya, the court found Prosper Paul, Samuel David, Nosiu Buba, and Samuel Kelvin guilty of attempted kidnapping under suit number TRSJ/75C/2021. The plot, according to the court, revolved around Paul’s deliberate plan to fake the abduction of his girlfriend and another woman in order to demand ransoms.

The judge noted that while the victims, Miss Fyafyatirmam Andeteran and Miss Brenda Anthony, were not forcibly taken, their collaboration in the scheme did not diminish the criminality of the act. “This was a clear attempt to obtain ransom through deceit, which amounts to kidnapping under the law,” Justice Agya said.

Paul’s girlfriend’s family reportedly paid N4 million, while a separate demand of N10 million was made in Brenda’s case. Their location was eventually traced to a hotel in Jalingo through phone records. Paul was handed an additional 12-month sentence for criminal conspiracy, while the other three defendants were discharged of that charge but sentenced to life for their role in the attempted kidnapping.

The judge strongly condemned the growing pattern of young women colluding with partners to defraud their families, calling it “a disturbing social menace.”
Though both victims escaped prosecution, the court made it clear their actions were deeply troubling. “They were lucky not to be standing in the dock today,” Justice Agya remarked.

Defence counsel pleaded for leniency, citing remorse and reformation, but signalled their intent to study the ruling for potential appeal. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Justice hailed the verdict as a powerful deterrent.

“This judgment reinforces the rule of law and sends a clear message to criminal-minded individuals,” said Mustapha Adam, Deputy Director of Citizens’ Rights.

 

Continue Reading

Judiciary

Appeal Court Affirms IPOB As Terrorist Group

Published

on

IPOB Flag
IPOB Flag
Share

The Court of Appeal in Abuja has affirmed the January 18, 2018 order by Justice Abdu Kafarati of the Federal High Court, Abuja proscribing the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, and designating it as terrorist organisation.

In a judgment on Thursday, a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal was unanimous in holding that the Federal Government acted lawfully in proscribing the group, whose activities threatened the nation’s continued existence and the security of citizens.

In the lead judgment, Justice Hamma Barka resolved all the issues raised for determination against the appellant – IPOB and declared the appeal unmeritorious and dismissed it.

 

 

Continue Reading

Judiciary

Court Stops VIO, Others From Seizing Vehicles, Imposing Fines

Published

on

VIO Vehicles
VIO Vehicles
Share

The Federal High Court in Abuja has curtailed the powers of the Directorate of Road Traffic Services (VIO), barring it from stopping and impounding vehicles or imposing fines on motorists across Nigeria’s capital.

Justice Evelyn Maha, on October 2, 2024, delivered this judgment in response to a fundamental rights enforcement lawsuit initiated by public interest lawyer Abubakar Marshal.

The court found that the VIO, along with other enforcement officials, lacked the legal authority to halt vehicles or penalise drivers.

The ruling impacts the Director of Road Transport, the Area Commander of Jabi, the Team Leader of Jabi, and the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), who were all named as respondents.

Justice Maha ruled that none of these parties, under the Minister’s authority, could justify the seizure of vehicles or the imposition of fines on road users.

The judge further issued a perpetual injunction prohibiting these officials and their agents from infringing on the rights of Nigerians to move freely, asserting that any such actions violate constitutional rights, including the presumption of innocence and the protection of personal property.

This ruling reinforces motorists’ rights and limits the powers of the authorities in vehicle-related enforcement without legal grounds.

 

Continue Reading