The Abuja division of the Federal High Court has refused the request by the detained leader of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) Nnamdi Kanu to wear the Igbo traditional attire “isi agu” while in custody.

In his suit before the court, the Biafra agitator said preventing him from wearing his preferred attire is tantamount to an infringement on his fundamental human rights.

Kanu was renditioned to Nigeria from Kenya last June under questionable circumstances. Since his arrival, he has been detained by the Department of State Services (DSS), the secret police of Africa’s most populous nation.

But in his judgment on Thursday, Justice James Omotoso held that Kanu’s application lacked merit and consequently refused.

The court stated that the denial of wearing Igbo traditional attire does not amount to a violation of human rights as alleged by the applicant.

According to the court the IPOB leader has failed to prove his assertion to be granted the reliefs sought in his suit.

Justice Omotoso said there is nothing on record before the court to show that he was discriminated against or that other inmates enjoy any form of privileges or rights than the applicant.

“The case of the applicant is based on speculation without any concrete evidence, the applicant’s suit lack merit, same failed and consequently the suit is hereby refused.”

In a fundamental human rights enforcement suit filed by his counsel Maxwell Okpara, Kanu had prayed the court for a declaration that the DSS while carrying out their lawful duties are bound to respect the fundamental rights of a citizen.

A declaration that the applicant currently under detention is entitled to his human right according to the Constitution.

The applicant also wants the court to hold that preventing Kanu from Igbo wearing traditional attire and other traditional attire which the Constitution does not forbid.

The respondents, DG DSS and AGF in their counter averred that they have not in any way bridged the constitutional right of Kanu.

They held that Justice Binta Nyako before whom Kano is standing trial for a treasonable felony had bared Kano from wearing Igbo traditional attire that granting that would amount to promoting courses in which he is been held.

Another court presided by Justice Binta Nyako had in a suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1585/2021 rejected Kanu’s similar application to wear his traditional Igbo title attire which depicts the stigma of the proscribed organization known as Indigenous People of Biafra.

The embattled IPOB leader argued that though he is currently a detainee, he is entitled to the enjoyment of his fundamental right to freedom from discrimination as guaranteed under Section 42(1) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.

Cited as 1^st to 3^rd Respondents in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/482/2022, are the Director-General of the State Security Service (also called DSS), the State Security Service and the Attorney-General of the Federation.

Specifically, Kanu is asking the court to among other things declare “that the Respondents, whilst carrying out their lawful duties, are bound to adhere to and/or respect the fundamental rights of all citizens of Nigeria as enshrined in Chapter 4 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended and the Africa Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act.”

He is also seeking an “order directing the Respondents, jointly and severally, to immediately allow the Applicant to have a change of clothes in their detention facility or at any time he appears in public for his trial.

“An order of this court directing the Respondents, jointly or severally, to allow the Applicant to start wearing any clothes of his choice, more so, to allow him to wear his traditional Igbo Attire (Isi-Agu) and/or other Igbo traditional attires of his choice.

“An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Respondents, their authorized agents by whatever name so-called, from further disturbing or interfering with the rights of the Applicant to dignity of the human person and freedom from discrimination or in any way infringing on the constitutional rights of the Applicant as guaranteed by law or from making any attempt capable of violating the Applicant’s rights as guaranteed under the Constitution.” (Daily Sun)

Update news