The leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu,
has filed a suit at the Court of Appeal, seeking the reinstatement of
his bail.
The legal brief filed by his lead counsel, Aloy
Ejimakor, Esq. on behalf of the appellant, is in response to the ruling
of the trial court that refused to restore the appellant’s bail, which
was revoked due to his alleged failure to appear in court.
Kanu’s
legal team argues that the trial court erred in revoking his bail,
citing a previous Supreme Court ruling in his favour and the
Administration of Criminal Justice Act’s provision for substituting
bail.
“This is the Appellant’s Brief of Argument filed pursuant
to the Notice of Appeal lodged on the 5th day of June, 2024 against the
ruling of the trial Judge delivered on the 20th day of May, 2024
refusing to restore/reinstate the Appellant’s Bail erroneously revoked
on the misrepresentations of the Respondent that the Appellant jumped
bail.
Learn how I went from $0 in affiliate income to over $5,000.000 per month. Are you a blogger but unsure of how to make money online? Or, maybe you've been blogging for awhile but haven't had much luck with affiliate marketing.
“The learned trial Judge refused to restore the bail or
even order home detention in spite of the affidavit evidence and the
pertinent finding of the Supreme Court before the Court,” Kanu’s legal
team alleged.
Kanu’s lawyers maintain that he did not jump bail
but was forced to flee his home and country due to an “unlawful military
operation” by the respondent (the Federal Republic of Nigeria) that
endangered his life.
“The Appellant while on bail and in
compliance with the terms of bail was in Afiaraukwu Ibeku, his hometown
in Abia State when the Respondent devised a means of unlawfully
assassinating the Appellant through a lethal military operation code
named ‘Operation Python Dance’ levied by the armed forces of the
Respondent in the said Appellant’s hometown,” the suit read.
According to the appeal document made available to ,
Kanu’s legal team argued that “the decision of the trial court
retaining the detention of the Appellant in the Respondent’s DSS
detention facilities…is a grave miscarriage of justice”.
They
further stated that “the only reason behind the detention of the
Appellant in the DSS facility is to prevent his engagement with lawyers
of his choice and to ensure that the facilities needed to adequately
prepare the Appellant’s defence are not made available to the
Appellant”.
The appellant requests the appeal court to reverse
the trial court’s decision, reinstate his bail with original or new
terms, or transfer him to an alternative detention facility, such as
house arrest or prison.
The brief sought the court’s relief to
“set aside the order revoking the appellant’s bail, restore his bail,
and transfer him to an alternative place of custody”.
No comments:
Post a Comment
https://saviournicodemus.blogspot.com