COURT SET TO RULE IN NNAMDI KANU'S SUIT AGAINST DSS ON JULY 20

Read Time:2 Minute, 32 Second

Nnamdi Kanu filed a lawsuit against the Department of State Services, requesting an order allowing him unlimited access to his doctor. The Federal High Court in Abuja has set July 20 for a decision in that case.

Kanu sued the DSS and its Director General in a lawsuit with the file number FHC/ABJ/CS/2341/2022. He also asked the court for permission to request a mandamus order through his legal team, which was managed by Mike Ozekhome, SAN.

After Ozekhome filed an ex-parte application in this regard, the court gave Kanu permission to apply for the order of mandamus he was seeking on February 1.

The DSS, however, sought the court’s rejection of the case for lack of jurisdiction in a preliminary objection.

At the time of the matter’s resumed hearing, Kanu’s attorney, Ozekhome SAN, informed the court that the motion, dated February 2, was served on the respondents on February 3 in accordance with an earlier direction of Justice Nyako, the presiding judge, to grant Kanu access to his doctor.

He claimed that the DSS had ignored the access order and added that doing so violated Section 7 of the Anti-Torture Act.

Kanu’s medical report prior to his rendition on June 27, 2021, and a medical report of his current health status were both included in two exhibits, he claimed, which were presented to the court.

“We asked if we could see his medical report and they are refusing and if he dies, this will cause national commotion.”

“What do they lose to allow an independent doctor to examine him in their presence,” he said.

“We rely on all the processes to humbly request you to grant our omnibus prayers,” he said.

He denied claims that Kanu violated his bail conditions on April 25, 2017, after the court had set him free.

Ozekhome maintained that the subject issues and the parties in the two situations were distinct, rejecting the DSS’s claim that the case was analogous to the decision made by a sister court.

“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.

In addition, he claimed that the law permitted a person who had been wronged to bring many cases where the circumstances of their case revealed multiple causes of action.

Danlami urged the court to reject Kanu’s claim of lack of jurisdiction in the interest of justice and the country.

One of the exhibits, according to the lawyer, showed that Kanu was both physically and clinically sound.

Justice Binta Nyako postponed a ruling on the case until July 20 after hearing arguments from both parties.