From Godwin Tsa, Abuja
Detained leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has filed a N20 billion defamatory suit against Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Abubakar Malami.
In the suit lodged at the registry of the Umuahia division of the Federal High Court, the Biafran agitator noted that Malami had allegedly defamed his character in a publication where he (Malami) claimed that he (Kanu) had earlier jumped bail and therefore, was not eligible for another.
According to court’s documents, his special counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, who instituted the action on his behalf, stated that Malami’s alleged defamatory publication was injurious to Kanu’s pending cases.
The suit dated January 13, Kanu is demanding compensation on the alleged defamatory and libellous claims against him by the AGF.
Parts of the claims read: “A declaration of this court that, in view of the judgment of Abia State High Court, the defendant’s published statements or utterances to the effect that claimant jumped bail, as published in a Vanguard newspaper publication, are libellous and defamatory;
An order of this court directing the defendant to retract the said Vanguard newspaper publication through another statement to the Vanguard newspaper;
“An order of this court directing the defendant to write and deliver to the claimant, an unreserved letter of apology. The letter of apology shall be prominently and boldly published full-page in two Nigerian newspapers of national circulation, namely: Guardian Newspaper and The Sun Newspaper;
“An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from further and forever uttering the said defamatory and libellous words about or concerning the claimant;
“An order of this court directing the defendant to pay to the claimant N20 billion being general and exemplary damages.
“Kanu, following his arrest, was detained for 18 months and released on bail in April 2017, whereupon he returned to his ancestral home at Afara-Ukwu Ibeku in Umuahia North council of Abia State where he stayed and awaited his next court date scheduled for October 17, 2017 at the Federal High Court of Nigeria, Abuja Division.
“However, that on or about September10, 2017, while he was resting at home with some family members and friends, the Nigerian Army, assisted by other security agencies launched lethal military invasions against the claimant at his residential building and premises at Isiama Afaraukwu Ibeku, Umuahia North council, Abia State.
“That beginning from the date of his release from detention to the date of the said military invasion, claimant was not charged with any new offence and there was no court order revoking his bail or any such order that he be arrested or invaded. In the course of the invasion, the claimant (as a human being menaced by a mortal danger) resorted to self-help and self-preservation, whereby he successfully fled from the mortal danger levied by those that came to terminate his life without any justification.
“He informed the court that on September 2021, based on said military invasion and its aftermaths, he levied a fundamental rights suit against the Nigerian Army, the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the defendant in this suit and others before the High Court of Abia State in Suit No: HIN/FR.14/2021.
On January 19, 2022, the High Court of Abia consequently rendered a judgment in favour of the claimant, whereby the court awarded N1 billion damages in favour of the claimant and ordered the Federal Republic of Nigeria qua Nigerian Army and the rest of the respondents, including the defendant) to issue and publish a public apology to the claimant.
In the said judgment, the court stated as follows: “The issue of the military invasion of applicant’s residential abode and premises at Isiama Afaraukwu Ibeku, Abia State on September 10, 2017 by agents of 1st respondent is so notorious and common knowledge that this court cannot turn a blind eye to it. I am satisfied that applicant has proved the violation of his fundamental rights to dignity of human person, personal liberty and attempted violation of his right to life by 1st respondent and or its agents and none of the respondents in this suit has shown any real justification for such conduct. It is the view of this court that the agent of the first respondent set out as pythons to terminate the life of the applicant. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s Relief 1 and 7 succeed and it is hereby granted as prayed. The applicant deserves an apology as prayed.”