17th November, 2021
The High Commissioner,
British High Commission,
Plot 1137 Diplomatic Drive,
Central Business District,
Garki, Abuja.
Her Excellency,
SOLITARY CONFINEMENT OF MAZI NNAMDI KANU (A BRITISH CITIZEN) IN THE CUSTODY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE SECURITY
IN RE: CHARGE NO. FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA V. NNAMDI KANU
We act as Solicitors to Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, (hereinafter referred to simply as,
‘our client’), a British citizen, currently held in solitary confinement in the
facility of the Department of State Security, Abuja, Nigeria. We write this
letter to your good self, consistent with his brief and instruction. Our said
client has informed us to the following effect, namely,
a. That on the 19th day of June, 2021, he was abducted at the Jomo Kenyatta International Airport, Nairobi, Kenya, by Kenyan security operatives and was severely tortured and dehumanised for eight days. Further, that after he had undergone excruciating physical assault, he was subsequently extraordinarily renditionedto Nigeria.
b. That upon being extraordinarily renditioned as aforesaid, our client was summarily brought before the Federal High Court, Abuja Judicial Division, presided over by Hon. Justice BintaNyako, on the 29th day of June, 2021, and was, by order made under the hand of the learned Judge, remanded in the custody of the Department of State Security, Abuja. It is instructive to note that these proceedings were taken surreptitiously, without notice to us and without affording our client the benefit of legal representation.
c. That in the proceedings aforesaid, the criminal charge preferred against our client in 2015 and pending in the same court was adjourned to the 26th day of July, 2021, for hearing. Further, that on the adjourned date, operatives of the Department of State Security did not produce our client in court and did not proffer any reason for his non-production. For this reason, proceedings which could have been taken on that day was truncated and the case was further adjourned to the 21st day of October, 2021, for hearing.
d. Before the adjournment referred to in (c) above, we made concerted efforts to have audience with our client at the situs of his confinement but our efforts in this regard were stoutly resisted by operatives of the Department of State Security. On account of this development, we were constrained to file a formal application in court praying it to direct in the meantime that access to our client in custody be given to us forthwith, pending the hearing and determination of a further application for the transfer of our client to the Correctional Centre at Abuja.
e. After arguments were taken on the application, the learned trial Judge acceded to our prayer and directed that the Detaining Authority, namely, the Department of State Security, should thenceforth afford us access to our client on Mondays and Thursdays of every week. Subsequently, the order referred to above was flagrantly violated by operatives of the Detaining Authority, as we were not afforded access to our client. This was inspite of the fact that we caused the enrolled order of court to be served on the Detaining Authority. It was only upon the activation of the mechanism for the enforcement of orders of courts by committal that operatives of the Detaining Authority buckled and complied with the order of court.
f. That on the 21st day of October, 2021, the court delivered a Ruling on the
application which we filed praying it for an order of transfer of our client from the facility of the Department of State Security to the Nigerian Correctional Centre, Kuje, Abuja. In the Ruling, the court refused the first relief we sought, namely, an order for transfer of our client to a correctional facility, but proceeded to increase the permitted number of
persons who could visit him. This number was increased to cover any three persons of our client’s choice. The court further mandated the Detaining Authority to provide our client with maximum possible comfort for his stay in their facility. A copy of the said order of court is herewith attached for ease of reference.
Regrettably, despite the fact that the court order referred to above was
immediately enrolled and served on the Department of State Security, the
latter denied persons whom our client chose to have audience with access
to our client. One of such persons is a certain Bruce Fein. For the record,
Bruce Fein a foremost American Constitutional Law Attorney, who doubles as our client’s International Attorney and Attorney to IPOB in the
United States of America, was denied access to our client, both at the facility of the Department of State Security, for five consecutive times, and at the court.
g. It must be pointed out that our client was diagnosed of a medical condition, occasioned by gradual depletion of potassium in his system, which condition has defied every medical solution so far given to him within the facility of the Department of State Security.
h. Furthermore, our client has since his extraordinary rendition to Nigeria, been exclusively confined to a tiny cell where he has no access to any other living object except his handlers, who bring food to him. Our client informed me and I verily believe him that he is daily exposed to mental and psychological torture, all targeted at breaking his spirit and compelling him to admit guilt in respect of an offence he never committed. Our client is forced to sleep on a tiny mattress without pillow, an unhealthy living condition that heightens the deterioration of his health status, and has led to his developing acute acid reflux with consequent intense chest pains and extreme difficulty in swallowing. He is being exposed to this terrible condition despite the fact that the order made by the court on the 21st day of October, 2021, was unequivocal in its directive that our client should be given maximum possible comfort in his place of custody. Subjecting our client to mental and psychological torture is a grave infraction on his right and a crime clearly prohibited under Section 2 of the Anti-Torture Act 2017 and punishable under Section 8 of the same Act. This law prescribed a maximum punishment of 25 years for erring officials of the Detaining Authority found to be in violation of this law. This grave infraction on our client’s right by operatives of the Department of State Security has continued unabated.
i. Right to freedom of Religion/worship is a constitutionally guaranteed right of the citizens, clearly provided for in Section 38 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, (as Amended). It is instructive to also point out the fact that our client has not been convicted of any offence known to law. That being so, the law presumes him innocent of the 7-Count Amended Charge. Further, since his remand at the facility of the Department of State Security, Abuja, he has been denied his constitutional right to practice his religion. He is not allowed to practice his Jewish faith. Furthermore, recently, he is being fed with poorly prepared food, which, ostensibly, is designed to slowly kill him.
j. It is our respectful position that the 7-count Amended Charge filed against our client is not only ridiculous, but empty and worthless. It is a clear strategy to detain him in perpetuity under the guise that he is being tried on the ludicrous/bogus offences contained in the charge. May I quickly point out to you that we have effectively challenged the jurisdiction of the court to hear the charge on the well fortifiedground that the charge did not disclose any offence known to law against our client. The court is yet to hear the application.
k. It is our further information that over 300 innocent members of the Indigenous People of Biafra arrested across the South East States are secretly being detained in the facility of the Department of State Security, Abuja, without access to their relatives and lawyers. They are not allowed
to have any form of interaction with the outside world, and the Detaining
Authority is not making any effort to bring them before any court of law to face trial for any offence alleged against them.
l. We are hereby alerting the world on the fact that the Department of State Security is the nominal complainant in the charge filed against our client. It also participated in the bloody invasion of our client’s ancestral home on the 14th day of September, 2017, where over 28 innocent, unarmed and defenseless civilians were killed. This secret service department is not supervised or answerable to any democratic institution, except the Commander-in- Chief of the Armed Forces, who, in the instant case, is one of the complainants in the present charge and, as such, detaining our client at the hostile facility of the very department that wants to liquidate our client by all means. The British Government is respectfully urged to do everything to protect the life of its national, our client, who, from every indication, is gripped by the vice-like, vengeful, and unrelenting stranglehold of the present Federal Government of Nigeria. Britain cannot afford to shirk the obligation it owes our client.
We also respectfully call for an aggressive diplomatic engagement/effort to ensure that our client is released unconditionally in the shortest possible time. The Nigerian Government should not be allowed to benefit from its wrongdoing. It grossly violated all international treaties it is a signatory to the moment it surreptitiously entered a sovereign state to kidnap/abduct a British national and extraordinarily renditionedhim to Nigeria for a trial that is a sham.
In anticipation of Her Excellency’s most expeditious response in this regard, may the Ambassador accept the assurances of our deepest regards.
Yours Faithfully,
……………………………………….
CHIEF IFEANYI EJIOFOR
PRINCIPAL PARTNER
I.C. EJIOFOR & CO.
