…It is of serious concern that the visit was conducted without strict adherence to the court-ordered guideline~ BARR. EJIOFOR
Ifeanyi Ejiofor, lawyer to the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, on Tuesday, protested the visit of a former governor of Abia State, Orji Uzor Kalu, to the IPOB leader in the custody of the Department of State Services, saying the visit violated court orders.
Ejiofor raised the objections in a statement issued in Abuja on Tuesday titled, ‘Update on our visit to our noble client, Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu at the DSS Headquarters Abuja on November 29 2021.’
Ejiofor said Kalu told the legal team that he was coming to visit Kanu in detention but visited him earlier alone aided by the DSS.
Ejiofor said, “We can at best describe what transpired yesterday (Monday) between a visitor whom the detaining authority ostensibly aided to violate the court-ordered guideline for visiting our client as bizarre and unusual.
“The DSS is not oblivious of the terms of the Court’s guideline which they have consistently maintained in the past that it must be obeyed to the letter, and through which position they had denied many friends and Attorneys of our client, access to him.
“However, caution was thrown to the wind yesterday and instead of insisting on this full compliance with the existing guideline, the DSS for reasons best known to them allowed a visitor access to our client even before the time scheduled for the formal visit and without his lawyers being present during the visit.
“It is of serious concern that the visit was conducted without strict adherence to the court-ordered guideline, but more condescending that the visit later became a subject of political gimmicks. If we, our Client’s Attorneys, his flesh and blood brothers, and his wife will visit him in due compliance with the court-ordered guideline, how can the DSS authorize a visit from any other person in gross violation of this guideline?
“There is more to it than meets the eyes, which the DSS is now under a compelling duty to explain to us. Granted that his name appeared among the list submitted at the 11th hour alongside the names of the lawyers scheduled for the visit, but hurriedly proceeding to conduct the visit without us being present in line with the requirement of the guideline left us with many unanswered questions.
“We have initiated a formal process towards ensuring a thorough investigation of what transpired, and we shall not hesitate to formally address the world on this subject if there is any attempt to sweep our petition under the carpet.”
He added, “We may not wish to speak further on this subject or even discuss our client’s position on this visit pending the outcome of investigation on the DSS authorized violation of the court-ordered guideline.
“In as much as we have unequivocally demanded an immediate investigation, we are not by any means insinuating that visitors of our client’s choice are not permitted or restrained from visiting him henceforth, but our position is that every visit to our client must conform with the already set out guideline by the Court.
“We shall keep you all updated as we navigate through this turbulent path, but just note that victory and nothing less than victory is our goal, and it shall surely end in victory.”