THE INCESSANT VIOLATION OF NNAMDI KANU’S RIGHTS- AN ALARM TO JUSTICE AND HUMANITY
By IPOB Johannesburg Media
In recent years, the Nigerian government and its security apparatus, particularly the Department of State Services (DSS), have shown an alarming disregard for the basic human rights of individuals it detains.
The plight of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), provides a glaring example of this.
Kanu, who has been in DSS custody since 2020 after his extraordinary rendition from Kenya, continues to suffer restrictions on basic rights—such as the right to access his legal team, relatives, and even his own physician.
This consistent denial of access casts a stark light on the erosion of rule of law in Nigeria and raises troubling questions about the transparency and accountability of state institutions.
On October 24, 2024, the entire IPOB and Nnamdi Kanu’s legal team publicly cried out and raised an urgent alarm that the DSS has clearly been denying Kanu access to his legal team for more than a month now, despite court-ordered visitations meant to ensure his wellbeing and consultations with his team for preparation of his defence in court.
This refusal, alongside the DSS’s longstanding refusal to allow Kanu a change of clothes or medical examination by his personal physician, points to a troubling trend where the DSS appears to operate above both court orders and the constitution.
This disobedience to legal mandates by a state agency reflects a broader trend of lawlessness, where the rights of individuals deemed inconvenient to the government are consistently suppressed.
The DSS’s actions are not only inhumane but unconstitutional.
A democratic state committed to justice is bound by its own laws to ensure that even those accused of crimes retain their fundamental human rights.
Court-ordered visitations were established to enable Kanu’s family and lawyers to see him and confirm his safety and wellbeing.
When a state body, such as the DSS, blatantly disregards these orders, it creates a dangerous precedent: that security agencies can decide, on their own accord, who has rights and who does not.
This is not only illegal but poses a direct threat to Nigeria’s rule of law, painting the country as one in which state power trumps justice.
Furthermore, the Nigerian judiciary has a duty to ensure that its orders are respected.
A court of law must not become an institution whose authority can be flouted by state agencies without repercussion.
Justice Binta Nyako’s initial recusal from Kanu’s case, followed by its subsequent overruling by the Chief Judge, underscores a judiciary caught between a commitment to justice and the interference of political interests.
The judiciary must stand firm in its role as a neutral arbiter, able to check executive overreach by institutions such as the DSS.
One must ask: what is the DSS hiding?
If Kanu is healthy and treated with basic human dignity, why the persistent refusal to allow his legal team or family to see him?
In the eyes of many, these actions reinforce the perception that the Nigerian government views Kanu’s detention not as a matter of justice, but as an instrument of political repression.
This situation is more than a national issue; it is an issue of human rights that has drawn attention beyond Nigeria’s borders.
The international community cannot stand idly by while individuals in Nigeria are denied their basic rights under the guise of national security.
Human rights are universal, and any violation of them by a state diminishes its credibility on the global stage.
For Nigeria to restore faith in its democracy and judiciary, it must ensure that even those it deems dissenters are treated in line with national and international legal standards.
Denying Kanu access to his legal team, relatives, or physician is a violation of his rights, and it is time the Nigerian government acknowledges this and acts accordingly.
If the state cannot uphold justice, it risks creating a society where individuals feel they must take matters into their own hands.
This situation with Kanu reminds us that a true democracy does not repress or silence dissent but rather engages with it lawfully, transparently, and justly.
To the IPOB Johannesburg Zone, this struggle represents more than Kanu’s freedom; it is a call for the restoration of respect for rule of law, accountability, and human dignity in Nigeria.