The IPOB leader filed an appeal alleging that the Attorney-General of the Federation and the Director-General of the Department of State Services had violated his fundamental rights.
Following Kanu’s conviction and life sentence by the Federal High Court in Abuja on November 20, a three-member panel of the appellate court determined that the appeal was without substance and had become academic.
In the main ruling, Justice Boloukuromo Ugo stated that as Kanu was now in a penitentiary facility rather than DSS custody, the allegations of rights violations, such as the claimed denial of sufficient medical care, freedom of religion, and dignity of person, could no longer be considered.
The plea for a transfer from DSS custody to Kuje jail was deemed irrelevant by Justice Ugo because Kanu’s attorney, Maxwell Opara, had acknowledged at the beginning of the hearings that his client was being held at the Sokoto Correctional Center.
The judge further stated that while Kanu had previously expressed a preference for incarceration, the circumstances surrounding his conviction and legal remand had overshadowed his prayers.
The appeal contested Justice Taiwo Taiwo, a former Federal High Court judge, who dismissed Kanu’s fundamental rights enforcement lawsuit on July 3 due to insufficient evidence.
The DSS Director-General, the DSS, and the AGF were the respondents in this case.
In the initial lawsuit, FHC/ABJ/CS/1585/2021, which was filed in December 2021, Kanu claimed that his health had declined while he was under DSS custody and that the medical staff who were treating him were not qualified.
Idowu Awo, the DSS attorney, retorted that Opara had not provided any proof that the medical staff were “quacks.”
Simon Enoch, the AGF’s attorney, also asked the court to reject the application.
According to the trial court’s ruling, Kanu had not shown reliable proof of torture, deprivation of religious freedom, or subpar medical treatment.
While detainees have the freedom to exercise their religion, the trial court, Justice Taiwo, decided that this practice must not interfere with the rights or tranquility of other inmates.
Regarding the allegation of insufficient medical care, the judge observed that the applicant did not present any medical expert to support the claims.
As a result, the Federal High Court rejected the complaint for lack of merit; the Court of Appeal has since sustained and affirmed this decision.
