Ajayi must appear in court to defend himself, following his refusal to comply despite a judicial warning on October 18, 2024.
A Federal High Court in Abuja has issued a notice to Adeola Oluwatosin Ajayi, Director-General of the State Security Services (SSS), to explain why he shouldn't be imprisoned for disobeying a court order.
Nigeria’s secret police, SSS, is also known as the Department of State Services (DSS).
The order allows the lawyers representing the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, to visit him.
Ajayi must appear in court to defend himself, following his refusal to comply despite a judicial warning on October 18, 2024.
The Judicial Notice which was signed by the court Registrar states, inter alia: “Take Notice that the Defendant will apply to this court for an order for your committal to prison for having disobeyed the order of this court made on the 20th day of May, 2024.”
A statement by Aloy Ejimakor for Kanu's team of lawyers, titled "Re: Federal High Court issues show-cause notice against the DG of DSS on his denial of Counsel access to Mazi Nnamdi Kanu," explained that by this Notice, Mr. Ajayi will be required to personally appear in Court to answer for himself.
According to him, the notice was triggered by the refusal of Mr. Ajayi to retrace his steps after he was, on October 18, 2024, issued a judicial warning by the Court, on the penal consequences of his persistent disobedience of the court-ordered Counsel visitation to Mazi Kanu.
In particular, the statement noted that "on 23rd October 2024, acting on the instructions and orders of Mr. Ajayi, armed officers of the DSS barricaded Mazi Kanu’s lawyers (Aloy Ejimakor and Mandela Umegborogu) from having access to Mazi Kanu on a routine visitation aimed at discussing his case with him and ascertaining his general wellbeing. It was the contemplation of this judicial Notice that made us to embargo any official press statement on this matter until this moment.
"It is self-evident that Mr. Ajayi is acting on the legal advice emanating from their private counsel, Asiwaju Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), who is holding the fiat of the Attorney-General of the Federation (Chief Lateef Fagbemi, SAN).
"In addition to the said legal advice, Chief Awomolo had on behalf of AGF Fagbemi and the Federal Government filed an application on 7th October 2024, before the Court, stating that the recusal of Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako from this case has invalidated all the Orders made by her in the case.
"In rebuttal, we filed a process, stating that if the Orders made by Justice Nyako are now - by virtue of her recusal - null and void, then the order of remand/detention of Mazi Kanu which was also made by her has become null and void, thus rendering Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s detention unconstitutional.”
"Therefore, standing on this Attorney-General’s evident nullification of all the orders made by Justice Nyako in this case, including the order upon which Mazi Kanu remains in incarceration, we hereby call on the Federal Government to follow their logic by freeing Mazi Kanu immediately because his detention no longer has the backing of a valid court order," the statement noted.
It added, "To be sure, it is impermissible for the Federal Government to invalidate the order on Counsel visitation to Mazi Kanu and insist at the same time that the order by which he is detained is still valid.
“In other words, it is wrong and unconstitutional for the Federal Government through the DSS to cherry-pick which orders it will obey and the ones it will disobey. No sane society anchored on rule of law should tolerate this."
Ejimakor stated that the interference with Kanu’s constitutional right of unfettered access to his lawyers has underscored the case they have been making in Court and in public that continuing to detain Kanu at the DSS facility constitutes a "permanent institutional hindrance to any prospect of garnering him a fair trial".
He said, "This is the reason we had - as a panacea - initiated vigorous applications to either restore Mazi Kanu’s bail, transfer him to prison custody or to home detention, where such unconstitutional restrictions are known to be absent.
"Like we had indicated in the recent past, no criminal trial can ever happen when the conditions of detention or the locale of custody of the defendant is fraught with man-made hindrances to the adequate preparation of the defendant for his defense, particularly access to the lawyers that are conducting his defense.”