Justice James Omotosho rescheduled hearing in the fundamental rights enforcement suit on Monday owing to the absence of the applicant’s lawyer.
A fresh N1billion suit filed by the detained leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu against the Federal Government and three others will be heard in March.
This is according to a Federal High Court in Abuja.
The court fixed further hearing for March 4.
The others are the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), the Department of State Services (DSS) and its Director General.
Justice James Omotosho rescheduled hearing in the fundamental rights enforcement suit on Monday owing to the absence of the applicant’s lawyer.
At the mention of the case, no lawyer announced appearance for the applicant, while the respondents were represented by two lawyers – Enoch Simon (for the Fed Govt 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 said he came to court out of respect for the court.
Awo, who spoke in similar manner, said “We were not served as well.”
Upon listening to the lawyers, Justice Omotosho adjourned 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 forcible seizure and photocopying of confidential legal documents pertaining to facilitating the preparation of his defence which were brought to him at the respondents’ detention facility by his lawyers, amounted to denial of his rights to be defended by legal practitioners of his own choice.
Other reliefs being sought include:
– 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, with said discussions/consultations relating to preparation of his defense, amounted to denial of his right to be given adequate facilities for the preparation of his defence by legal practitioners of his own choice.
– A declaration that the respondents’ act of eavesdropping on his confidential consultations/conversations with his lawyers on matters relating to preparation of his defence during the lawyers’ visitations amounted to denial of applicant’s right to be given adequate facilities for the preparation of his defence and to be.defended by legal practitioners of his own choice.
– An order of injunction restraining and prohibiting the respondents from their act of 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 respondents’ detention facility.
– An order of injunction restraining and prohibiting the respondents from their act of eavesdropping on the applicant’s confidential consultations/conversations with his lawyers on matters relating to preparation of applicant’s defence during the lawyers’ visitations with the applicant at the detention facility.
– An order compelling the respondents to issue an official letter of apology to him for the infringement of his fundamental right to fair hearing.
– 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 his rights’ breach.