BIG STORY

Court Dismisses Nnamdi Kanu’s N50bn ‘Rights Violation’ Suit Against Federal Government

Published

on

The Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a fundamental rights lawsuit filed by Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), in which he challenged his extradition from Kenya to Nigeria.

The case, registered as FHC/ABJ/CS/462/2022, was filed against the Federal Government and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) in 2022.

Kanu urged the court to decide “whether the way and manner in which the plaintiff was abducted in Kenya and extraordinarily renditioned to Nigeria is consistent with extant laws”.

He argued that his extradition contravened article 12 (4) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act Cap A9, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, as well as article/part 5 (a) of the African Charter’s principles and guidelines on human and peoples’ rights.

He also requested the court to determine if he could lawfully be tried in Nigeria following his forced return, and called for his release from the custody of the Department of State Services (DSS), in addition to a halt on the proceedings in the criminal case labeled FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015.

Furthermore, Kanu demanded N50 billion in damages and N100 million to cover litigation costs.

However, the Federal Government and the AGF, in a preliminary objection submitted on June 27, 2022, asked the court to reject the suit, claiming it amounted to “an abuse of court process”.

They stated that Kanu had already filed a similar case at the Federal High Court in Umuahia, Abia State, under the case number FHC/UM/CS/30/2022, involving the same parties.

During Thursday’s hearing, neither Kanu nor the Federal Government had legal representation in court.

Justice Inyang Ekwo, who presided over the matter, observed that at the previous session, Kanu had no lawyer present, while the government was represented.

He further noted that the case had already been delayed three times for similar reasons.

As a result, the judge struck out the case due to lack of diligent prosecution, citing the absence of any party to proceed with the hearing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Most Popular

Exit mobile version