On Friday, the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal filed by Nnamdi Kanu, the convicted leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB).
Kanu had challenged what he claimed were violations of his fundamental rights by the Director-General of the Department of State Services (DSS) and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF).
A three-member panel ruled that the appeal lacked merit and had become academic following Kanu’s conviction and life sentence by the Federal High Court in Abuja on November 20.
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Boloukuromo Ugo noted that Kanu’s claims—including alleged denial of adequate medical care, dignity, and freedom of religion—could no longer be considered, as he was no longer in DSS custody but in a correctional facility.
Justice Ugo noted that Kanu’s lawyer, Maxwell Opara, had confirmed at the start of proceedings that his client was being held at the Sokoto Correctional Centre, making the request for transfer from DSS custody to Kuje prison irrelevant.
The judge added that Kanu had earlier indicated preference for prison custody, and therefore his prayers had been overtaken by events following his conviction and lawful remand.
The appeal challenged the July 3 judgment of retired Federal High Court judge, Justice Taiwo Taiwo, who dismissed Kanu’s fundamental rights enforcement suit for lack of proof.
The respondents in the case were the DSS Director-General, the DSS, and the AGF.
In the original lawsuit filed in December 2021 (FHC/ABJ/CS/1585/2021), Kanu claimed that his health deteriorated while in DSS custody and alleged that the medical personnel attending to him were unqualified.
However, DSS counsel Idowu Awo argued that Kanu’s legal team had not provided any evidence proving that the medical staff were “quacks.”
Similarly, the Attorney General of the Federation’s lawyer, Simon Enoch, urged the court to dismiss the application.
In its judgment, the trial court found that Kanu had not presented credible evidence of torture, denial of religious freedom, or inadequate medical care.
Justice Taiwo, the trial judge, noted that while detainees have the right to practice their religion, such practices must not infringe on the rights or disrupt the peace of others in custody.
Regarding the claim of insufficient medical attention, the judge observed that Kanu had failed to call any medical expert to support his allegations.
Consequently, the Federal High Court dismissed the suit for lacking in merit, a decision now upheld and affirmed by the Court of Appeal.