ECOWAS Court of Justice has dismissed a suit of the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Mr. Nnamdi Kanu, filed against the Federal Republic of Nigeria, alleging that he was tortured, assaulted and subjected to inhuman treatment by security operatives when he was arrested in 2015.
Vanguard reports that the regional court, in its judgement that was read by Justice Dupe Atoki, held that the IPOB leader failed to prove its allegations against FG, saying it had no reason to conclude that his arrest and detention were unlawful and arbitrary as claimed.
The three member panel of the Court sitting in Abuja on Wednesday also dismissed Kanu’s request for monetary compensation.
Though the Court acknowledged that the IPOB leader had the legal capacity to approach it to seek redress for any violation of his human rights, it however held that without a mandate, he lacked the legal personality to represent the IPOB before the Court.
The court further struck out names of the second and third defendants, the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice and the Director General of the Department of State Service, DSS, from the suit on the premise that they were not signatories to the ECOWAS Revised Treat, thus leaving only the Federal Republic of Nigeria as the sole defendant in the suit.
Kanu had in the suit marked ECW/CCJ/APP/06/16, which he filed before the Court on March 3, 2016, through his lawyer, Mr. Ifeanyi Ejiofor, claimed that his rights to life, personal integrity, privacy, fair trial, freedom of movement, freedom of expression, personal liberty, freedom of association, private property, right to existence and right to self-determination were violated following his arrest and detention by Nigerian security agents.
The plaintiff also alleged that he was a victim of arbitrary arrest, detention, torture inhuman and degrading treatment while in detention, insisting that FG confiscated his personal belongings through its agent.
Kanu, who was hitherto the Director of Radio Biafra, registered under the regulatory laws of the United Kingdom and the United Nations, demanded monetary compensation in the sum of $800 million US dollars.
