The leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu, has urged the Appeal Court to set aside the revocation of his bail by the Abuja Federal High Court.
Kanu also urged the Appeal Court to restore the terms and conditions attached to his revoked bail by the court presided by Justice Binta Nyako.
In a Notice of Appeal filed by his lead Counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, the IPOB leader urged the appellate court to restore him to a place or custody where he would enjoy a fair trial.
Parts of the Notice of Appeal reads: “My noble Lords, in view of the totality of the arguments adduced herein by the Appellant, we respectfully urge Your Lordships to resolve this appeal in favour of the Appellant (Kanu) and grant the RELIEFS sought as follows:
“An Order allowing this Appeal and setting aside the decision of the trial court made on the 20th day of May, 2024.
“An Order restoring/reinstating the bail of the Appellant on same terms as earlier granted; or an Order restoring/reinstating the Appellant’s bail on any new terms and conditions.
“AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE: An Order remanding the Appellant to an alternative place of custody or home detention/house arrest that can accord the Appellant the atmosphere to have a fair trial.
“Any Order the Honourable Court of Appeal deems fit to make in the circumstances of this Appeal.”
Ejimakor informed the Appeal Court that the Notice of Appeal was lodged against the ruling of Justice Nyako delivered on the 20th day of May, 2024 refusing to restore Kanu’s bail erroneously revoked on the misrepresentations of the Nigerian
government that he jumped bail.
He said: “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.
“The Notice of Appeal bears 4 grounds from which the issues herein have been distilled. 2.0. SUMMARY OF FACTS:2.1. On or about 14th October 2015, the Appellant was arrested and charged, with three other suspects, for the offences relating to managing an unlawful society and other offences which were later dropped/struck out and amended to offenses relating to conspiracy, treasonable felony, false declaration of imported goods and defamation of the President.
“Upon arraignment, the Appellant was granted bail on the 25th day of April, 2017 by the trial court on grounds of ill health. See Paragraph 2.03 of the Respondent’s Brief of Argument before the Supreme Court in SC/CR/1361/2022 at page 7 of the Additional Record of Appeal. 2.2.
“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. 2.3. By providence, the Appellant escaped assassination though casualties were recorded in the operation. The Appellant was later awarded One Billion Naira in damages for this military operation and the judgment was on
record before the trial court and later the Supreme Court. In the interim, and because of Appellant’s flight to safety, the Respondent deceptively approached the trial Court for the revocation of the Appellant’s bail on the ground that the Appellant had jumped bail.
“The order as sought was made on the 28th day of March, 2019. 2.4. Pursuant to the order revoking the Appellant’s bail, the Appellant was abducted by agents of the Respondents and extraordinarily renditioned from Kenya to Nigeria in June 2021 and on the 20th day of October, 2021, the erstwhile charge was amended to try the Appellant separately from others with whom the Appellant was initially charged. The Respondent further amended the charge to include offences relating to terrorism, on the strength of which the Appellant filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection on the 19th day of January, 2022.
“The validity or otherwise of the charges/counts vis-à-vis the extraordinary rendition of the Appellant was contested up to the Supreme Court and in its judgment, the Supreme Court, though allowed the appeal in favour of the Respondent, agreed with the Appellant that the rendition was unlawful and in particular- that the Appellant did not jump bail but was justified in running for his life given the circumstances of the Operation Python Dance and stated that the revocation of the Appellant’s bail was erroneous and made the impartiality of the trial Court suspicious. See EXHIBIT MNK 1 at pages10 – 14 and 19-23 of the Record of Appeal.
Comments
Post a Comment
https://saviournicodemus.blogspot.com