Stories by Vivian Okejeme
The Chief of Army Staff, Lt-Gen. Tukur Buratai, has asked the Federal High Court, Abuja to dismiss a suit, seeking to compel him to produce the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu.
Counsel to Kanu, Ifeanyi Ejiofor had earlier filed an application praying the court to order Buratai to produce Kanu dead or alive.
Ejiofor had premised his application on ground that Kanu was last seen with the Nigerian Army on September 14, and that neither he (Ejiofor) nor Kanu’s family had seen or heard from Kanu since then.
Pursuant to section 40 of the Federal High Court Act, F12, LFN 2005 and section 6(6) (1) (4) of the 1999 constitution, as amended, Ejiofor applied for “an order of Habeas Corpus ad subjiciendum, commanding the respondent (Buratai), to produce the Applicant in Court”.
“On the 12th September, 2017, the Nigeria military soldiers acting under express command handed down by the respondent violently invaded the applicant’s home in Afara-ukwu Ibeku, Umuahia Abia State, wherein scores of his relative were brutally wounded and many killed.
“On 14th day of September, 2017, the Nigerian military led by soldiers of the Nigerian Army invaded the applicant’s house on a murderous raid, where life and mortar bullets were fired on unarmed and defenseless populace, leaving 28 persons dead and abducting many.
“That the wall of the applicant’s bedroom is riddled with bullets holes till date. Attached and marked as Exhibits EK1, EK2, EK3, EK4, EK5 EK6, EK7 and EK8 are photographs showing with sufficient clarity the impact of this assault on the Applicant’s home.”
However, in a motion opposing the application, Buratai, through his counsel, Akinlolu Kehinde, asked the court to dismiss the said application.
He submitted that Kanu was not and had never been in the custody of the Nigerian Army.
He further submitted that the Nigerian Army did not at any time arrest or take Kanu into its custody within the period the military operation lasted in the South-East.
In addition, he argued that there was no document before the court to prove that Kanu was in the custody of the army, noting that the onus was on Kanu to prove that he was taken by the army.
Kehinde urged the court to dismiss the application on the ground that it was laden with speculations, conjecture and assumptions which, he said were not admissible in law.
A counter-affidavit deposed to by Col. A.A. Yusuf, also claimed that the alleged invasion of Kanu’s house during the period of the operation was false.
He maintained that contrary to claims in the suit, soldiers who were deployed to the South-East for ‘Operation Python Dance II, did not have any contact whatsoever with Kanu on September 12 or 14, or anytime thereafter as alleged.
The Chief of Army Staff told the court that the Nigerian Army did not at any time arrest or take Kanu into custody within the period the military operation lasted, even as he denied allegation that soldiers invaded the IPOB leader’s house in Afara-Ukwu Ibeku, Umuahia, Abia State.
He further argued that the alleged invasion of Kanu’s house was totally false.
However, the Army boss told the court that his men only chased a truck he said was laden with arms and explosives of different kinds, into a compound he said was later discovered to belong to Kanu and his father.
The counter-affidavit reads in part: “That the applicant (Kanu) is not and has never been in his custody or in the custody of any person, officer or institution receiving instruction directly or indirectly from him.
“That the applicant was not at any time whatsoever arrested, taken into custody or detained by the Officers and men of the Nigerian Army.”
Justice Binta Nyako adjourned the matter until December13 for ruling.
