*Malami, Army, NPF fail to appear in court
For the past 42 days counting, shops, markets, business outlets have been operating partly following the sit-at-home imposed on the Southeast by the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB.
iBrandTV gathered that the sit-at-home directive was a protest to rally support for Nnamdi Kanu, leader of IPOB, who is in detention.
Despite the IPOB executives calling of the directive, it continued as businesses, residents are scared of the unknown.
Those in favour of the peaceful protest have continued while those against pointed out that the region lost over N50 billion daily, stressing that if it continued to stay, economic activities in the region will be devastated.
But surprisingly, the exercise which has recorded wide compliance throughout the zone, it been overlooked this week, as it was partially observed in major cities in the South East including Enugu, Onitsha, Awka, Nnewi and Aba.
iBrandTV gathered that banks, shops and major markets were open for business compared to previous Mondays, whereby residents stayed indoors out of fear of being attacked by hoodlums in the guise of enforcing an already cancelled sit-at-home order.
Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe, Senate minority leader, condemned the development in the region, stressing that it has being detrimental to the economy of the Southeast.
In his word during a broadcast with Arise TV, “First of all, IPOB, on its own, said there should be no more sit-at-home, and people should go about their legitimate businesses.
“Yet there were some people who attacked those going about their business, saying that there should be a lockdown. Meaning that nobody now knows who was enforcing what. And why we felt that those who are enforcing it couldn’t have been those who said no more sit-at-home; it must have been some elements that we do not know.
“And we actually suggested that both the governor and the security agencies work hand in hand to fish out those who are doing this because this is detrimental to our welfare and the economy of the south-east.
Meanwhile, the suit filed by the Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, against the federal government has been adjourned to October 7 for further hearing.
Vacation judge, Justice KCK Okereke of the Abia State High Court before adjourning the matter today, ordered that it be transferred back to the State Chief Judge for re-assignment as his vacation elapses September 30.
The Judge noted that Kanu shall be entitled to certain reliefs against any party that fails to timely respond to the suit.
He had earlier granted Kanu leave to serve all respondents by substituted means through a publication in two national dailies.
Kanu sues FG
Kanu had through his special counsel, Mr. Aloy Ejimakor, sued the Federal Government of Nigeria for his “extraordinary rendition from Kenya”.
He demands among other things that he be returned to Kenya where he was “abducted”, and then to Britain where he resides; and paid N5 billion for the gross violation of his fundamental human rights.
The respondents include: the Federal Government of Nigeria: the Attorney General of the Federation; the Chief of Army Staff; Brigade Commander, 14 Brigade Ohafia; Inspector General of Police, IGP; Commissioner of Police, Abia State; the Director General of the Department of State Security Services, DSS; and the Abia State Director of DSS.
While the seventh and eight respondents, respectively, through their Counsel, Mrs. C Odukwe, filed a counter-affidavit, the first to the sixth respondents did not appear in court, nor were they represented by an attorney.
Counsel to Kanu had prayed the court to foreclose any further opportunities to the other respondents who did not appear in court to file any other counter affidavit but the judge said granting the prayer would be speculative.
Kanu’s lawyer, Ejimakor, expressed optimism his client would get justice in the end.
Ejimakor who appeared for Kanu in company of several lawyers including Patrick Agazie and Wilson Kalu, expressed confidence in the capacity of the Abia High Court to uphold the law by enforcing Kanu’s human rights.
He said that the judiciary remained the last hope of the common man, arguing that in democracy, court orders should be respected by all.
His words: “there is an unbroken chain of federal government’s violations of Kanu’s constitutional rights that started with the lethal military invasion of his home in Umuahia and his flight to safety in 2017 and his extraordinary rendition to Nigeria in late June 2021.
“At today’s hearing, it emerged that out of the eight respondents, only two – the DSS in Abuja and Umuahia – have filed their reply to the Suit but their processes were filed out of time.
“Nothing was received from the other six respondents, which included the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Attorney-General of the Federation and the Nigerian Army.
“It also emerged that an apex Igbo socio-cultural organization, the Alaigbo Development Foundation (ADF) has filed an application seeking leave of the Court to file an amicus brief in support of Kanu.
Other prayers by the IPOB Leader
“A declaration that the military invasion of the Applicant’s building and premises at Isiama, Afaraukwu Ibeku, Abia State on 10th September, 2017 by the respondents or their agents is illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional and amount to infringement of the applicant’s fundamental right to life, dignity of his person, his personal liberty and fair hearing as guaranteed under the pertinent provisions of Chapter IV of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (hereafter, CFRN) and the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (hereafter, the Charter).
” A declaration that the arrest of the applicant in Kenya by the respondents or their agents without due process of law is arbitrary, illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional and amounts to infringement of the Applicant’s fundamental right against arbitrary arrest, to his personal liberty and to fair hearing as enshrined and guaranteed under the pertinent provisions of CFRN and the Charter.
“A declaration that the torture and detention of the Applicant in Kenya by the Respondents or their agents is illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional and amounts to infringement of the Applicant’s fundamental right against torture and to fair hearing, as enshrined and guaranteed under the pertinent provisions of CFRN and the Charter).
” A declaration that the expulsion of the Applicant from Kenya to Nigeria by the Respondents or their agents and their consequent detention and planned prosecution of the Applicant in Charge No: FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015 (Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Nnamdi Kanu) is illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional and amount to infringement of the Applicant’s fundamental right against unlawful expulsion and detention, and to fair hearing, as enshrined and guaranteed under the pertinent provisions of CFRN and the Charter).
” An order of injunction restraining the respondents or their agents from taking any further step in the prosecution of the Applicant in Charge No: FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015 (Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Nnamdi Kanu) pursuant to said unlawful expulsion of the Applicant from Kenya to Nigeria.
” An order mandating and compelling the respondents or their agents to forthwith release the applicant from detention and restitute or otherwise restore applicant to his liberty, same being his state of being as of 19th June, 2021; and to thereupon repatriate the applicant to his country of domicile (to wit: Britain) to await the outcome of any formal request the Respondents may file before the competent authorities in Britain for the lawful extradition of the Applicant to Nigeria to continue his prosecution in Charge No: FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015 (Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Nnamdi Kanu).
” An order mandating and compelling the respondents to issue an official letter of apology to the applicant for the infringement of his fundamental rights; and publication of said Letter of apology in three national dailies.
” An order mandating and compelling the respondents to pay the sum of N5 billion to the applicant, being monetary damages claimed by the applicant against the respondents jointly and severally for the physical, mental, emotional, psychological and other damages suffered by the applicant as a result of the infringements of Applicant’s fundamental rights.”