Threatens another legal action against failure

Special Counsel to the detained Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Nnamdi Kanu, disclosed, yesterday, that he has served the Department of State Services (DSS) a final administrative demand to release Kanu, forthwith, in line with October 26 judgment of the Federal High Court, Umuahia, Abia State.

According to the counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, the court held: “The continued detention of Kanu in DSS custody, in Abuja, amounts to brazen violation of his fundamental rights under the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”

He told The Guardian that he wrote the Director General of DSS, Yusuf Bichi, demanding the release of Kanu from his continued detention. He said: “Failure to comply with this demand will, without further notice, trigger prompt judicial measures to enforce compliance.”

In his letter, which was made available to The Guardian, Ejimakor informed the DG of DSS that, on October 27, 2022, the day after delivery of the judgement, certified true copies of the judgment, as well as the Judgment Order by the registry of the Federal High Court were made available to him (Ejimakor) and a lawyer from Umuahia office of DSS. Thus, “affirmatively putting your office on record notice of the judgment.”

According to Ejimakor, the court declared that “the manner of arrest and detention of the applicant in Kenya, his continued detention in Abuja, his subjection to physical and mental trauma by the respondents, the inhuman and degrading treatment meted out to the applicant amounts to violation of the applicant’s fundamental right to dignity of his person, as well as threat to life under section 34 (1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).”

According to the letter, the Constitution provides that “the decisions of the Federal High Court, a High Court and of other courts, established by this Constitution, shall be enforced in any part of the federation by all authorities and persons, and by other courts of law with subordinate jurisdiction to that of the Federal High Court, a High Court and those other courts, respectively.”

Concluding, Ejimakor wrote: “In view of the forgoing constitutional provisions, it is mandatory for your office (DSS), being the detaining authority, to enforce the said judgment by releasing our client in compliance with the ruling that our client’s continued detention is unconstitutional.