Home Contact Us Tip Us: [email protected]
Hot Stories
Recent Stories
Terrorism: IPOB Lawyers To Move For Nnamdi Kanu’s Bail on Feb 26
Posted by Thandiubani on Fri 23rd Feb, 2024 - tori.ngKanu has been detained by the Department of State Services, DSS, on the orders of the Nigerian Government since June 2021 when he was subjected to extraordinary rendition from Kenya back to the country.
The legal team of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB has revealed plans to bail him.
The team said it will on February 26 move to secure his release on bail, pending the determination of his trial at the Federal High Court in Abuja.
Kanu has been detained by the Department of State Services, DSS, on the orders of the Nigerian Government since June 2021 when he was subjected to extraordinary rendition from Kenya back to the country.
Upon his return, the Appeal Court discharged and acquitted Kanu of all charges bordering on terrorism but in December 2023, the Supreme Court upturned the ruling and returned the case to the Abuja Federal High Court for continuation of trial.
The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has fixed February 26 for the resumption of Kanu’s terrorism trial.
However, DAILY POST learnt that IPOB’s legal team is anchoring Kanu’s bail on his lack of privacy during visitations with his lawyers, which adversely impacts on his constitutional right to counsel and adequacy of facility for the preparation of his defense.
The legal team will also argue that he had already spent a cumulative period of 50 months or over four years in “pretrial detention”.
The bail will also be based on Kanu’s “life-threatening medical conditions, namely: the heart ailment, the hypertension and the potassium deficiency.”
In a court document sighted by DAILY POST correspondent with suit no: FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, IPOB’s legal team said: “On the basis of the foregoing, we respectfully urge Your Lordship to admit him to bail on liberal and non-excessive terms.”
In the Motion on Notice brought in pursuant to sections 6(6), 35 and 36(5), and sections 158, 161 and 162 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, the legal team will pray the court for “an order of this Honourable Court admitting the Applicant/Defendant to bail pending the determination of his trial.
“AND for such further order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances”.
Kanu’s brother, Prince Emmanuel, deposed an affidavit in support of the motion for the IPOB leader’s bail.
Parts of the affidavit read: “I, Prince Emmanuel Kanu, male, adult, a Christian and a Nigerian citizen, resident at Eze I. O Kanu Drive, Isiama Afaraukwu Ibeku, Umuahia North LGA, Abia State do hereby make this Oath and state as follows:
“That I am a relative of the Defendant/Applicant (hereafter: “Applicant”) who, being currently in detention, has given me his consent to depose to this Affidavit.
“That I was informed by the Applicant on the 18th of January, 2024 at about 4pm at the Headquarters of the State Security Services in Abuja, of the following facts of which I verily believe to be true.
“That in October 2015, Applicant was arrested in Lagos upon his return from the United Kingdom, detained in Abuja, charged and was arraigned for certain offenses.
“That in April 2017, Applicant was released on bail on the Order of this Honourable Court, whereupon Applicant returned to his ancestral home in Isiama Afaraukwu Ibeku, Umuahia North LGA, Abia State, and remained there awaiting his next trial date set for October 20, 2017.
“That between 10th September and 14th September 2017, while Applicant was resting at home with some family members and friends, the Nigerian Army assaulted the said Applicant’s ancestral home.
“That during the military assault, Applicant managed to escape and remained in hiding until October 2018 when Applicant was able to safely make his way to Israel from where he executed a detailed deposition addressed to this Honourable Court, stating the reason (i .e the said military assault) that had compelled him to escape and thus miss his trial in October 2017.
“That Applicant reasonably believed that his duty to appear in court to face trial does not include a suicidal obligation on his part not to flee and save himself from being extrajudicially killed.”
Top Stories
Popular Stories
Stories from this Category
Recent Stories
