The Court of Appeal in Abuja on Friday dismissed an appeal filed by the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, over claims that his fundamental rights were violated while he was in the custody of the Department of State Services.
A three-member panel held that the case had no merit and no longer had any practical use since Kanu had already been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Federal High Court on November 20.
Reading the lead judgment, Justice Boloukuromo Ugo said the issues raised by Kanu, including claims of lack of proper medical care, denial of dignity, and limits to his religious freedom, could not stand because he was no longer held by the DSS.
Justice Ugo explained that Kanu’s lawyer, Maxwell Opara, confirmed at the start of the hearing that his client was now in the Sokoto Correctional Centre. He said this meant the request for a transfer from DSS custody to Kuje prison no longer applied.
The judge also noted that Kanu had earlier said he preferred to stay in prison custody, so the appeal had been overtaken by events after his conviction.
The appeal was against a July 3 ruling by retired Federal High Court judge, Justice Taiwo Taiwo, who had dismissed Kanu’s rights enforcement suit for lack of proof.
In the original case filed in December 2021, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1585/2021, Kanu claimed that his health had worsened while in DSS detention and accused the medical workers attending to him of being unqualified.
But DSS lawyer, Idowu Awo, told the court that the claims were not backed by any evidence and that Opara failed to prove that the medical team were quacks. The lawyer for the Attorney-General of the Federation, Simon Enoch, also asked the court to throw out the case.
Justice Taiwo had ruled at the time that Kanu did not provide credible evidence to show torture, denial of religious rights, or poor medical care. He explained that while detainees have the right to practise their religion, it must not disturb others in custody. He also pointed out that no medical expert was called to support the claim of inadequate treatment.
The Federal High Court’s decision to dismiss the suit for lack of merit has now been upheld by the Court of Appeal.
