Court orders DSS to let Nnamdi Kanu see his choice doctor

On Thursday, Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court in Abuja ruled that the Department of State Service (DSS) must enable the leader of the banned Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) to see a doctor of his choosing while in detention.

The court ruled that Kanu has the right to see whatever doctor he chooses in accordance with his human rights, but that the costs will fall on the shoulders of the self-proclaimed leader of Biafra.

Kanu’s legal team, lead by Prof. Mike Ozekhome, SAN, filed a lawsuit demanding the security agency grant him unfettered access to his private physicians.

He wanted the court to issue an injunction telling the DSS to stop interfering with his access to his private doctor and health records.

To conduct an independent examination to ascertain his state of health, as previously ordered by Justice Nyako, on October 21, 2021, and as required by the express provisions of Section 7 of the Anti-Torture Act, 2017, Kanu filed a lawsuit with the Federal High Court with the case number FHC/ABJ/CS/ 2341/2022.

Kanu said he needed the DSS to give him his admission paperwork, his medical and clinical notes, his nursing notes, his observation charts and documentation from his time in the hospital, his laboratory test results, his pharmaceutical records, his radiological scans, images, and reports, his blood transfusion paperwork, his physiotherapy and rehabilitation treatment paperwork, his clinical findings, and his prescriptions for treatment.

Justice Nyako ruled that Kanu has the right to access his medical records, and that the DSS has no business getting in the way of that.

The court also ruled that Kanu’s medical team should oversee his medical examination outside the DSS’s facility and that the reports should be sealed for privacy reasons.

Prof. Ozekhome (SAN), Kanu’s lead counsel, responded to the ruling by praising Justice Nyako for her “courage and Godliness” in the decision, noting that the court’s initial ruling dismissing eight counts and the appeals court’s subsequent ruling dismissing the remaining seven counts constitute a new case study in the field of law.