Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a N50 billion lawsuit filed by Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), against the Federal Government, citing lack of diligent prosecution.
The ruling came after multiple adjournments during which the court noted the persistent absence of legal representation for Kanu. While the Federal Government was represented at the most recent hearing, no lawyer appeared on Kanu’s behalf, prompting Justice Ekwo to strike out the case.
Kanu had initiated the lawsuit against the Federal Government and the Attorney-General of the Federation, alleging a violation of his fundamental rights.
He claimed that he was unlawfully abducted from Kenya and brought back to Nigeria in a process he described as “extraordinary rendition.”
He sought the court’s determination on whether this action was consistent with Nigerian and international legal standards, including the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
Specifically, Kanu referenced Article 12(4) of the African Charter and Section 15 of Nigeria’s Extradition Act, arguing that the charges he is currently facing were not the basis for his rendition and that this violated his legal rights.
In total, he sought 11 reliefs, including an order for his release from DSS custody and an injunction to stop further prosecution in the criminal case before Justice Binta Nyako. He also requested N100 million as the cost of the suit.
However, the Federal Government, in a preliminary objection filed in June 2022, urged the court to dismiss the suit, labeling it as an abuse of court process. They pointed out that Kanu had filed a similar suit before the Federal High Court in Umuahia, involving the same parties and issues, which they argued stripped the Abuja court of jurisdiction.
At one of the earlier proceedings, Kanu’s counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, informed the court of a pending change of legal representation, noting that he would be replacing Mike Ozekhome, SAN, who originally filed the suit on April 7, 2022.
Despite these procedural steps, the prolonged absence of representation led the court to conclude that the matter was not being prosecuted with due diligence, resulting in the dismissal of the case.
ALSO READ TOP STORIES FROM VERILY NEWS
