The Federal High Court in Abuja has set May 18 to rule on an appeal made by Nnamdi Kanu, the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, to be released on bail pending the outcome of the treasonable felony charge leveled against him by the Federal Government.
After hearing arguments from Kanu’s lawyer, Chief Mike Ozekhome(SAN), and the prosecution counsel, Mr. Shuaibu Labaran, Trial Justice Binta Nyako delayed the case to rule on the application.
- Nnamdi Kanu’s trial: Judge warns DSS against blocking court premises
- Asari Dokubo mocks Nnamdi Kanu: IPOB is finished
FG’s lawyer, Labaran, contended that his client was entitled to bail since he still has the presumption of innocence under the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
The prosecution maintained that Kanu betrayed the previous discretion the court exercised in his favour, when he jumped bail and escaped from the country.
He argued that it was owing to Kanu’s previous conduct that the court revoked his bail and issued a bench warrant for his arrest.
“My lord granted him bail on 2017 on health ground, but since then, till date, no medical record was submitted to the court until he jumped bail.
“What we should be saying is contempt of court because he has flagrantly violated the orders of this court,” Labaran submitted.
However, Ozekhome faulted FG’s lawyer for alleging that his client jumped bail.
He told the court that Nnamdi Kanu attended his trial regularly, until the military, in September 2017, invaded his home in an operation that led to loss of lives.
Ozekhome insisted that it was the action of the Nigeria Army that made his client to run for his life.
Besides, he argued that FG violated the fundamental rights of his client in the way he was forcefully abducted and extra ordinarily renditioned back to Nigeria.
As a result, he urged the court to release Nnamdi Kanu on bail so that he could prepare an effective defense to the accusation pending against him.
Meanwhile, Justice Nyako denied Ozekhome’s claim that Kanu’s extra-ordinary rendition was illegal before the case was adjourned till May 18 and 26.
She emphasized that there was an active court warrant for the defendant’s arrest wherever he was found.