Nnamdi Kanu’s Lawyer Fumes Over Orji Kalu’s Visit To The IPOB Leader In DSS Custody

Barrister Ifeanyi Ejiofor, the main counsel for jailed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader Nnamdi Kanu, has urged an inquiry into former Abia State governor Orji Uzor Kalu’s visit to his client in DSS custody on Monday.

The lawyer stated the visit was in breach court ordered rules  for visits to his client in DSS care, though he didn’t reveal Kalu’s name.

Ejiofor said“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,”.

On Monday, Kalu, the Senate majority leader, paid a visit to the IPOB leader, who is being held in DSS custody as a result of a court order.

On his verified Facebook page, the Senator detailed his visit, including a photo he took with the IPOB leader.

According to what his said on his Facebook page early Tuesday morning, Ejiofor, who apparently also visited his client on Monday, was not amused by the visit.

Ejiofor accused the DSS of assisting in the breach of the visit’s guideline, which he termed as strange and unexpected.

He also accused the DSS of allowing Kalu to visit the IPOB leader without the presence of his lawyers as ordered by the court.

He said, “We have initiated a formal process towards ensuring a thorough investigation of what transpired yesterday, 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.

“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.

ALSO READ:  IPOB Leader, Nnamdi Kanu Writes To The British High Commission In Nigeria Demanding Full Protection & Release As A Citizen

“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 yesterday, 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.

“The Order of the court and terms as laid down guideline, to regulate visits to our Client is to ensure his maximum protection from persons who may wish to secretly seize the opportunity to hurt or intimidate him into accepting a false narrative outside the dungeon where he is being illegally detained, and they could achieve this through threats and/or coercion.

ALSO READ:  Cyprus adopts mass testing for virus hotspots

“Hence, the need for the presence of his lawyers before granting any audience.

“We may not wish to speak further on this subject or even discuss our Client’s position on this visit pending the outcome of the investigation on the DSS authorized violation of the court-ordered guideline.

“In as much as we have unequivocally demanded for 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.

ALSO READ

Leave a Reply