The Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, on Friday struck out an appeal filed by Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), challenging alleged violations of his fundamental rights while in the custody of the Department of State Services (DSS).
Kanu had accused the DSS of denying him adequate medical care, freedom of religion, and dignity of person, and sought redress against both the DSS Director-General and the Attorney-General of the Federation. However, a three-member panel of the appellate court, led by Justice Boloukuromo Moses Ugo, held that the appeal was without merit and had become academic following Kanu’s November 20 conviction for terrorism by the Federal High Court in Abuja.
Justice Ugo explained that since Kanu is no longer in DSS custody but has been remanded in Sokoto prison to serve his life sentence, the claims of rights violations could no longer be entertained. The court also noted that Kanu’s lawyer, Maxwell Opara, confirmed at the start of proceedings that his client was now in prison custody, making the reliefs sought irrelevant.
Context and Implications (woven into the narrative)
The ruling underscores the principle that fundamental rights enforcement suits must be tied to ongoing violations, not past grievances that have been overtaken by events. Analysts say the decision reflects the judiciary’s reluctance to entertain cases deemed “academic,” especially when the circumstances have changed significantly.
For Kanu, the dismissal marks another legal setback in his long-running battle with the Nigerian state. His conviction and life sentence have already reshaped the political and legal landscape around IPOB, and the appeal’s dismissal further narrows his options for challenging the government’s treatment of him while in DSS custody.
The case also highlights the tension between national security and individual rights, a recurring theme in Nigeria’s counter-terrorism efforts. While rights groups argue that detainees must be treated with dignity regardless of charges, the court’s ruling suggests that once a conviction and prison transfer occur, earlier custody complaints lose their legal relevance.
Sources:
