The Federal High Court in Abuja dismissed the fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), against the Department of State Services (DSS).
Justice James Omotosho, in his judgment, concluded that Kanu’s suit lacked merit and should be dismissed.
Kanu had filed the suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/482/2022, through his lawyer, accusing the DSS of subjecting him to various inhuman treatments.
He alleged that his right to wear the Igbo traditional attire known as “Isi-Agu” was denied while in DSS custody or during his court appearances.
According to Kanu, other inmates in the facility were allowed to choose and wear their preferred clothing, while he was restricted to a single outfit.
The IPOB leader also claimed that he was subjected to torture and that his right to dignity was violated. He sought an order from the court to allow him to wear any clothing of his choice while in custody or appearing in public, among other reliefs.
According to News About Nigeria, the DSS and its Director-General, in their counter affidavit, requested the court to dismiss Kanu’s claims. They refuted the allegations of torture, stating that Kanu was treated no differently from other suspects in their custody.
They clarified that the facility was not a place for inmates to showcase their traditional attires but rather followed a dress code outlined in their Standard Operating Procedure (SOP).
The DSS argued that plain clothes without offensive symbols, writings, colours, or insignias were allowed in their facilities. They accused Kanu’s family of attempting to provide him with traditional attires and clothing adorned with Biafra insignias, which were not suitable for detention facilities.
The DSS further mentioned that Justice Binta Nyako, the presiding judge in Kanu’s trial, had directed that he could wear any plain clothing of his choice, and deviating from this would contravene the court’s directive.
Justice Omotosho, delivering the judgment, emphasized that the right to human dignity, as stated in Section 34 of the 1999 Constitution, pertained to protection against torture and inhuman treatment.
He clarified that Kanu’s case did not involve torture or forced labour based on the evidence presented. The judge stated that the right to dignity did not include the right to change clothes as an inmate.
