Court postpones Nnamdi Kanu’s trial over delay in NMA health report

The Nigerian Medical Association (NMA) has revealed that it is yet to ascertain the health condition of Nnamdi Kanu, the detained leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), despite a recent court order mandating the association to do so.

On September 26, Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja directed the NMA president to constitute a medical panel to evaluate Kanu’s health status and submit a comprehensive report to the court.

The order came while ruling on an application filed by Kanu’s legal team, seeking his transfer from the Department of State Services (DSS) custody to the National Hospital, Abuja, for proper medical attention.

The IPOB leader claimed that his health had deteriorated in detention, citing medical reports that revealed liver and pancreatic complications, a lump under his armpit, and dangerously low potassium levels.

But the prosecution had opposed the application, insisting that the federal government had provided Kanu with adequate care in detention.

In his ruling, the judge said: “The right to life and good health of the defendant remains paramount, hence an order of this court is made directing the president of the Nigeria Medical Association (NMA) to constitute an investigative panel of between eight and 10 members to consider whether the defendant is truly suffering from the medical issues, whether the medical facility of the DSS is well-equipped to handle the medical issues of the defendant.”

The court further directed that the chief medical director of the National Hospital, or his representative, be part of the panel.

At the resumed proceedings on Wednesday, Suraj Sa’ada, lawyer for the prosecution, told the court that he was informed that the medical panel is yet to conclude its assignment.

Sa’ada said the panel plans to do a thorough job and should be given adequate time.

He suggested that the panel be given another week to enable it conclude its task.

Onyechi Ikpeazu, defence lawyer, did not object to the request for adjournment.

Consequently, the court adjourned the matter to October 16.