The counsel to the convicted leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, has accepted the Court of Appeal judgment that struck out the appeal challenging the alleged violations of Kanu’s fundamental rights by the Director-General of the Department of State Services and the Attorney-General of the Federation.
The counsel, Maxwell Okpara, who instituted the suit on behalf of Kanu, told Saturday that he was satisfied with the court’s decision because “it has been taken over by events.”
A three-member panel of the Abuja Division of the Appeal Court had on Friday struck out the appeal challenging the alleged violations of Kanu’s fundamental rights by the DSS DG and the Attorney-General.
The court held that the appeal lacked merit and had become academic following Kanu’s conviction and life imprisonment sentence by the Federal High Court in Abuja on November 20.
Justice James Omotosho had on the said date found Kanu guilty of all seven counts of terrorism charges preferred against him by the Federal Government.
The Court of Appeal, in its lead judgment delivered by Justice Boloukuromo Ugo, held that the claims of rights violations, including alleged denial of adequate medical care, dignity of the person, and freedom of religion, could no longer be entertained since Kanu was no longer in DSS custody but in a correctional facility.
Justice Ugo also noted that Kanu’s lawyer had confirmed at the start of proceedings that his client was being held at the Sokoto Correctional Centre, thereby rendering the request for transfer from DSS custody to Kuje Prison irrelevant.
The judge added that Kanu had earlier indicated preference for prison custody, and therefore his prayers had been overtaken by events following his conviction and lawful remand.
Justice Ugo noted that the pertinent question was whether the request by the appellant that he be moved out of the DSS facility was still feasible now in light of the recent public event concerning his trial.
He noted, “It is a matter of common knowledge, which this court is bound to take judicial notice of, that the criminal trial of the appellant, for which he was detained at the detention facility of the first and second respondents (DSS-DG and the DSS), has terminated in the recently televised judgment of James Omotosho J. of the Federal High Court on 20th November 2025, convicting him of charges of terrorism, among others, and sentencing him to life imprisonment.
“Even more significant is the further fact, which is equally of public knowledge, as confirmed by his counsel in court this morning, that the appellant has since been moved from the detention facility of the first and second respondents to a correctional facility in Sokoto State.
“Incidentally, the appellant himself had earlier complained, in his affidavit, that he had actually desired detention in a correctional facility.”
Speaking further, Justice Ugo said, “What that means is that the first and second respondents are no longer in a position to breach the fundamental human right to human dignity, as he (Kanu) complained that they were doing, for which he sought the orders of the lower court and this court, compelling them to afford him better treatment.
“In effect, the appellant’s fundamental rights enforcement application, and even the correctness of the decision of Taiwo Taiwo J., endorsing his continued detention in the detention facility of the first and second respondents, have all become academic and, therefore, no longer worthy of deliberation, let alone decision by us,” he added and consequently struck out the appeal.
The appeal challenged the July 3 judgment of retired Federal High Court judge, Justice Taiwo Taiwo, who dismissed Kanu’s fundamental rights enforcement suit for lack of proof.
The respondents in the case were the DSS Director-General, the DSS, and the AGF.
In the original suit filed in December 2021 and marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1585/2021, Kanu alleged deteriorating health while in DSS custody and claimed that medical personnel attending to him were unqualified.
However, DSS counsel, Idowu Awo, countered that Kanu failed to present any evidence showing the medical personnel were “quacks.”
The AGF’s lawyer, Simon Enoch, also urged the court to dismiss the application.
In its judgment, the trial court held that Kanu had not provided credible evidence of torture, denial of religious freedom, or inadequate medical care.
The trial judge, Justice Taiwo, ruled that while detainees have the right to practise their religion, such practice must not infringe on the rights or peace of others in custody.
On the claim of inadequate medical attention, the judge noted that the applicant failed to call any medical expert to substantiate the allegations.
Consequently, the Federal High Court dismissed the suit for lack of merit, a decision now upheld and affirmed by the Court of Appeal.