Rita Odafe
Nnamdi Kanu
The N50 billion lawsuit initiated by Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), against the Federal Government faced delays on Monday, November 25, due to Justice Inyang Ekwo’s absence from the Abuja Federal High Court.
This case was scheduled for that date but couldn’t proceed because Justice Ekwo was engaged elsewhere in the court system.
The next hearing is now set for February 11, 2025.
During previous hearings, Kanu’s attorney, Aloy Ejimakor, informed the court about a change of legal representation, indicating that he would be taking over from Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, who had initially filed the suit on April 7, 2022.
Kanu’s lawsuit names the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) as the first and second defendants, respectively, in case number FHC/ABJ/CS/462/2022.
The IPOB leader’s allegations focus on violations of his rights, claiming he was unlawfully abducted from Kenya and forcibly returned to Nigeria for trial.
He is asking the court to assess whether his abduction and extraordinary rendition from Kenya were carried out in accordance with the law.
Kanu specifically cites provisions from the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights in his challenge against his treatment.
He also requests the court to establish whether he can legally be tried based on the charges listed in his case, which do not correspond to the reasons for his extradition to Nigeria.
In his initial petition, Kanu is seeking 11 reliefs, among them a request for his release from detention by the Department of State Services (DSS) and a prohibition against further prosecution related to an existing criminal charge pending in another court.
Furthermore, Kanu has requested a compensation of N100 million for his legal expenses.
In response, the Federal Government and the AGF submitted a preliminary objection, arguing that the suit should be dismissed as it constitutes an abuse of court procedure, referencing an earlier similar case filed by Kanu in Umuahia.
They emphasized that the same defendants were involved in that earlier proceeding.
