Nnamdi Kanu had alleged in the suit that the SSS subjected him to different inhuman treatments and human rights breaches, including torture and denial of his right to wear any clothes of his choice.
The Federal High Court, Abuja, on Thursday, dismissed a fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), against the State Security Service (SSS).
The judge, James Omotosho, in a judgment, held that Mr Kanu's suit lacked merit and ought to be dismissed.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Kanu, in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/482/2022 and filed by his lawyer, had sued the Director General of SSS, SSS and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) as 1st to 3rd respondents, respectively.
In the suit, the IPOB leader alleged that the SSS subjected him to different inhuman treatments, including torture and denial of his right to wear any clothes of his choice.
But Mr Omotosho held that there was no evidence that he was tortured or made to undergo forced labour in custody.
He said a right to dignity was not a right to change clothes as an inmate in prison.
"The applicant cannot come to court to seek for rights which are not in the constitution," he said.
Besides, Mr Omotosho held that Mr Kanu failed to provide the photographs and names of inmates who were allowed to wear different attires while in custody.
He said the onus was on him to prove his case, but the applicant merely relied on bare facts without any evidence.
He described the IPOB leader's allegations as "a hypothesis without concrete evidence."
The judge, consequently, dismissed the case for lacking in merit.
Mr Kanu, a separatist campaigning for the secession of the five Igbo-dominated South-east regions of Nigeria and parts of some neighbouring states as an independent Biafra nation was captured in Kenya by the Nigerian government in June 2021.
Since then, he has engaged the SSS and the Nigerian government in a series of legal battles, some of which relate to his conditions in detention.
In Thursday's suit, he said he was deprived of his right to wear clothes of his choice, like the Igbo traditional attire called 'Isi-Agu', while in detention or anytime he appeared in court for his trial.
He alleged that the security agency, while allowing other inmates in their custody the freedom to choose and wear any clothes of their choice, restricted him to wearing only one set of clothes.
Mr Kanu also accused the SSS of subjecting him to torture, breaching his right to dignity, among others.
He, therefore, sought an order directing the respondents to allow him to wear any clothes of his choice while in the facility or when appearing in public, among other reliefs.
SSS counter-argument
But in a counter-affidavit filed against the suit, SSS urged the court to dismiss Mr Kanu's claim.
The agency and its director-general, jointly sued by Mr Kanu, said that their operatives had not and had never tortured Mr Kanu either physically or mentally while in their custody.
According to them, Mr Kanu is kept in the same facility as other suspects in their custody.
They said it was untrue that other suspects were allowed to wear any clothes they chose, including Hausa and Yoruba traditional wear.
They said the facility was not a recreational centre or traditional festival where Mr Kanu and other suspects would be allowed to adore themselves in their respective traditional attires.
They argued that there is a Standard Operation Procedure (SOP) on dress code by persons in their facilities.
"That in line with global best practices, persons in the 1st and 2nd respondents' facility are allowed to wear only plain clothes which do not bear symbols, writings, colours and insignias that are offensive to any religion, ethnic group or even the Nigeria state in general," they said.
They accused Mr Kanu's family of bringing traditional attires and other clothing with Biafra insignias and a pair of red shoes decorated with shining beads for him to wear in custody and attend court for his trial.
According to SSS, the clothes have colours of the non-existing Biafra Republic, which is the subject matter of the applicant's criminal trial.
They said the Isi-Agu attire, popularly called chieftaincy attire, was not a suitable dress for persons in detention facilities and was against its SOP.
They also argued that the judge handling his trial, Binta Nyako, had directed that Mr Kanu should be allowed to wear any plain clothes of his choice and that anything contrary would contravene the court's directive.
The SSS said they never breached his right to human dignity, as alleged by the IPOB leader.
Legal battles
Mr Kanu has won and lost legal battles against the Nigerian government, including a judgement of the Court of Appeal in Abuja that dismissed the charges pending against him at the Federal High Court in Abuja.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
The case is now before the Supreme Court.
Although the Court of Appeal in Abuja ordered the release of Mr Kanu from custody since no other charges were pending against him, the court later gave an order of stay of execution permitting the government to continue to hold him pending the resolution of the appeal at the Supreme Court.
Mr Kanu has also won a fundamental rights suit in which a court in Umuahia, Abia State, declared the invasion of his home in Afara-Ukwu, near Umuahia, illegal.
But a judge of the Federal High Court in Abuja, Taiwo Taiwo (now retired), had dismissed a suit brought by Mr Kanu in 2022, ruling that the IPOB leader had not provided sufficient evidence that his rights were being infringed upon by SSS in custody.
The judge also held that although Mr Kanu had the constitutional right to practice his religion in custody, he agreed with the SSS that a suspect in custody would not be allowed to practise his religion in such a way that would disturb the peace of other suspects in custody.
On the IPOB leader's claim that he was receiving inadequate treatments from SSS doctors, whom he had referred to as quacks, Taiwo said that "the applicant fails to lead evidence by calling a medical practitioner to convince the court that based on the medical report, the treatment given to Kanu is inadequate."
