The leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has filed a contempt charge against the Director-General of the Department of State Services (DSS), Yusuf Bichi, over his alleged refusal to obey court orders.

Kanu, through his lawyer, Aloy Ejimakor, on Monday, June 10, 2024, filed Form 49 titled, “Notice to Show Cause Why An Order Of Committal Should Not Be Made”, at the Federal High Court in Abuja.

While the Federal Republic of Nigeria is listed as complainant/1st respondent, Bichi is listed as 2nd respondent/contemnor.

The IPOB leader alleged that despite being served with the orders of the trial judge, Justice Binta Nyako, on May 20, Bichi had refused to comply with the orders.

Justice Nyako had, on May 20, declined to grant an application filed by Kanu to set aside his 2017 bail revocation following the allegation that he jumped bail.

The judge also refused to transfer him to Kuje Correctional Centre or place him under house arrest as requested.

However, Justice Nyako reviewed the conditions for visiting the IPOB leader at the DSS facility by his lawyers.

In a ruling, she varied the visitation days from two to three days in a week.

Again, court denies Kanu bail

The judge ordered that Kanu should be given a safe and “clean” room to prepare for his defence with his team of counsel not exceeding five in number, instead of three lawyers that were formerly directed.

She equally ordered that Kanu and his lawyers should be allowed such a facility that is required for the preparation of his defence and be allowed to take notes.

However, in the application, Kanu alleged that the DSS DG failed to abide by the orders.

The charge read: “Take Notice that the Defendant will on the ____day of _______, 2024, at the hour of 9 o’clock in the forenoon apply to this court for an order for your committal to prison for having disobeyed the order of this court made on the 20th day of May 2024, which stated in pertinent part as follows:

“You have not complied with the three days per week visitation to the Applicant as was ordered by the court.

“You have not provided a safe and ‘clean’ room to the Applicant at the present facility to prepare for his defence with his team of counsel.

“You have not allowed such facility that is required for the preparation of the Applicant’s defence, which facility you have disallowed on every visitation since the said order was entered, as set out below:

“Interdiction, seizure, perusal and photocopying of legal documents relating to the trial preparation of the Applicant.

“By not retracing your steps after you were, on the 31st day of May 2024, served with a Form 48; Notice of Consequences of Disobedience to Court.

“And take further notice that you are hereby required to attend the court on the first-mentioned day to show cause why an Order for your Committal should not be made.”

The Star