Court dismisses Kanu’s N1b human rights suit  

A Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a suit by detained leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, seeking N1 billion damages for alleged rights violation.

Kanu, in the suit, claimed that the Department of State Services (DSS) and its Director-General violated his right to fair hearing by allegedly preventing his lawyers from having unhindered interactions with him where he is being detained, in preparation of his defence in his criminal trial.

Among others, Kanu prayed the court to declare the respondents’ acts as a violation of his right and award him damages to the tune of N1 billion, including letter of apology to be published in national dailies.

Listed as respondents in the suit are the Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN), the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), the DSS and DG of the DSS.

But Justice James Omotosho, in a judgment yesterday, held that Kanu failed to provide credible evidence to sustain his claims that his interactions with his lawyers were interfered with, that he was denied unhindered access to his lawyers, and that DSS officials eavesdropped on his conversations with his lawyers, which constituted a breach of his right to fair hearing.

Justice Omotosho noted that the Kanu alleged that his fundamental right to fair hearing was breached by the third and fourth respondents (DSS and its DG) when they refused to allow his counsel take notes of their conversations and when they eavesdrop on the consultation with his counsel.

He equally noted that Kanu ‘is facing a criminal trial and is entitled to the right to adequate time and facilities in preparation for his defence’.

“He enjoys the constitutional right to fair hearing and, in consequence, has the right to adequate facilities to aid his defence. While there is no argument that the applicant is entitled to the right to adequate time and facilities, the applicant still has the burden to establish that indeed his rights were breached by the respondents.

“I have gone through the evidence laid before this court and there is nothing placed by the applicant to show that indeed the third and fourth respondents prevented him from seeing his counsel, or that they prevented the counsel from taking notes, or that they eavesdropped on their conversations.

“The applicant only said he believes these facts to be true without any proof of such belief. There are no dates or specific details as to when any of these occurred. There is also no evidence of any specific information which the third and fourth respondents gleaned from the conversations which the applicant can prove.

“Perhaps, if the applicant was able to pin point a particular information he gave his lawyers which the third and fourth respondents used against him, it would have helped his case.

“The applicant has failed to establish the breach of his fundamental right to fair hearing by the third and fourth respondents. Thus, the reliefs cannot be granted.

“In final analysis, there is no credible proof of breach of fundamental rights of the applicant. Consequently, this application is hereby dismissed,” Justice Omotosho said.