A High Court in Ibadan on Tuesday admitted as exhibit video clips of alleged invasion by the State Security Service, SSS, on the residence of Sunday Adeyemo, a.k.a Sunday Igboho, on July 1.
Mr Igboho’s counsel, Yomi Alliyu, SAN, filed a N500 billion Fundamental Human Rights enforcement suit against the Attorney-General of the Federation, AGF, Abubakar Malami, SSS and Director of State Services, Oyo State, over the invasion.
Mr Alliyu had earlier informed the court that his client’s house and cars were damaged and that two people were allegedly killed by security agents during the invasion.
At Tuesday’s hearing, Justice Ladiran Akintola, admitted the exhibit after listening to Mr Alliyu’s submission on the originating summons filed before the court.
Mr Akintola also admitted as exhibit, video clip tendered by the DSS Counsel, Mr T. A. Nurudeen, where Igboho allegedly threaten to create Oduduwa Republic, break away from Nigeria and asking Yorubas to fortify themselves with charms and guns.
The court ordered the two video clips to be played in the open court as requested by Igboho’s counsel and SSS counsel.
Addressing the court after playing the two video clips in the court, AGF counsel, Abdullah Abubakar, said that there was no evidence before the court that the blood seen in the video tendered by Alliyu belongs to a human being.
Mr Abubakar also said that there was nothing in the video clip that showed that the house that was invaded belonged to Igboho or linked the AGF with the invasion.
He urged the court to disregard the exhibit and dismiss the entire suit.
Counsel to the SSS, Nurudeen, aligned with the AGF’s submission, adding that there must be proof from a haematologist to show that the blood seen in the video belongs to a human being or cat.
In his argument, Mr Alliyu, said that the video clip tendered by the SSS can be referred to, as a cinema because the language used in the video was Yoruba which was not the language of the court.
He said that the SSS did not tender any evidence denying the killings or invasion of his client’s house and damaging some properties therein.
The court also heard the submission of all the counsel on the preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the matter.
Mr Akintola thereafter adjourned the case until Sept.17 for ruling and judgment of the suit.
NAN
