COURT POSTPONES NNAMDI KANU’S $1 BILLION LAWSUIT AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE DSS UNTIL MARCH 4.

Babatunji Wusu –

In a fresh N1 billion lawsuit against the Federal Government and three other defendants, Nnamdi Kanu, the imprisoned leader of the outlawed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), filed in a Federal High Court in Abuja, has set additional proceedings for March 4.

The Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), the Department of State Services (DSS), and its Director General are among the named defendants in the lawsuit.

The applicant’s attorney was not present, so Justice James Omotosho postponed the hearing in the fundamental rights enforcement lawsuit to a later time.

The applicants’ attorney did not declare their appearance during the case mention; in contrast, the respondents were represented by two attorneys, I. Awo representing the DSS and Enoch Simon representing the Federal Government and the AGF.

Simon reported to the court that his clients had not been served with the suit’s originating processes; instead, they had only gotten the hearing notice.

The attorney stated that he was in court because he respected the law.

Similar to how Awo expressed it, “We were not served as well.”

Judge Omotosho postponed the case to March 4 in order to continue the procedures after hearing from the attorneys. Additionally, he gave the order to issue and serve the applicant with a notice of hearing.

The IPOB leader is requesting a declaration in a lawsuit brought by his attorney, Aloy Ejimakor, that the respondents’ action of forcibly obtaining and photocopying private legal documents brought to him at the detention facility for the purpose of preparing his defense amounted to a denial of his right to be represented by attorneys of his choosing.

Nnamdi Kanu also requested a declaration alleging, among other things, that the respondents’ refusal to allow or hinder his attorney from taking notes during talks or consultations with him at the DSS detention facility, particularly when those talks concerned the preparation of his defense, amounted to a denial of his right to be provided with adequate facilities for the preparation of his defense by legal practitioners of his choosing.