Court Rules On Bail Application By Nnamdi Kanu, Others April 25
Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court, Abuja, has fixed April 25 for ruling on bail application filed by the leader of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu and three others.
The court also reserved April for varying on its earlier ruling on protection of witnesses in the matter through the use of screen. The judge had earlier maintained that the ruling on bail application would not stop trial, which has to go on simultaneously.
Meanwhile, the Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB) has accused the British government of bias over its failure to intervene in the killing of its members. The IPOB’s Media and Publicity Secretary, Emma Powerful, disclosed this in a statement.
According to him, Britain, which is noted for upholding human decency in the world, has remained silent over Federal Government’s inhuman treatment of the agitators. At the proceeding yesterday, Kanu’s counsel, Ifeanyi Ejiofor, informed the court of a pending application dated March 2 and filed the same day.
He also reminded the court that the defendant had been granted unconditional release by several courts, including the federal high court presided by Justice Ademola, but which the Federal Government failed to comply with.
He stated that in the course of detaining the defendant, he has suffered severe health issues. He asked the court to admit Kanu to bail in most liberal terms. Besides, both the second and third defendants asked the court to grant them bail, as the offences for which they were charged were bailable.
They argued that if beyond the charges levelled against them, which at the first instance was not even known to law, there was any other reason for which they are denied bail, such reason should be brought before the court.
Same position was adopted by the counsel to the fourth defendant, even as he urged the court to exercise its discretion and grant the defendant/applicant bail. But the prosecution counsel, S.M. Labaran, opposed the application, informing the court of a counter-affidavit filed against the defendants’ bail application.
He said the defendants should blame regular interruption of trial by the defendants for their continued detention. He asked the court therefore to refuse the application for bail.
