The lawyer of Nnamdi Kanu had alleged that the health of his client was deteriorating in the DSS custody, among others.
The director-general of the Department of States Services (DSS), Yusuf Bichi, got off the hook on a suit seeking to compel his appearance before a federal high court judge to testify about the health of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.
Justice Taiwo Taiwo, in the ruling on Wednesday, held that fundamental rights cases are special cases “sui generis” which mode of commencement is affidavit evidence as prescribed under Order 2, Rule 2 of the Fundamental Human Right Enforcement Procedure Rules, 2009, the News Agency of Nigeria reports.
The judge said though there were various modes of commencement of an action, including fundamental right cases, Kanu chose to commence his “under the Fundamental Right Enforcement Procedure Rules that stipulate affidavit evidence.
READ ALSO
Soludo sets to take oath of office amid high expectations. Will he justify the hope?
He ruled that after carefully perusing all the affidavits of the applicant and the respondents before him, he was of the view that there were no irreconcilable conflicts in the affidavits.
The judge, therefore, declined to grant Kanu’s application and was accordingly dismissed.
Taiwo adjourned the matter until April 13 for the hearing of the substantive application.
Recall that Kanu’s lawyer, Maxwell Opara, had filed an application on behalf of his client, praying the court to direct the DSS DG and the IPOB leader to appear before it to give oral evidence regarding the health condition of the latter.
Kanu, through his lawyer, had, in a fundamental rights enforcement suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1585/2021, sued the DG of DSS and the office as 1st and 2nd respondents respectively.
He also joined the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) as 3rd respondent in the suit dated and filed Dec. 13, 2021.
Opara had alleged that the health of his client was deteriorating in the DSS custody, among others.
Opara had filed a motion on notice dated February 14 and brought it pursuant to Section 116 of the Evidence Act.
He argued, in the last adjourned date, that there were conflicts in the counter affidavit filed by the DSS and that only oral evidence of the DG and Kanu could clarify the issue.
“We want to call Kanu and director-general of DSS to testify,” he had said.
