The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, has withheld its ruling on the Leader of Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu’s immediate return to Kuje Prison, for breaching his bail conditions.
This came as the Federal Government urged the court to revoke the bail it granted to Kanu, for not only breaching his bail conditions, but for conducting himself in manners that threaten public peace.
Recall, that Nnamdi Kanu and four others are being tried before the Federal High Court, Abuja, on offences relating to conspiracy and treasonable felony.
The Federal Government, cited Kanu’s alleged threat that elections would not hold in South-East States until the Federal Government conducts a referendum on whether or not Biafra should secede.
This was part of a counter-motion filed by Magaji Labaran of the Federal Ministry of Justice, urging the court to dismiss an application by Kanu, seeking a review of the bail conditions.
The Federal Government said: “The offence for which he (Kanu) is standing trial, is not ordinarily bailable; the court, not withstanding, granted bail to the 1st defendant/applicant (Kanu) on health grounds on 25th April 2017.
“Among other conditions for the bail of the 1st defendant, is that he should not be seen in a crowd exceeding 10 people; that he should not grant any interviews, hold or attend any rallies; that he should file in court, medical updates of his health status every month. The bail conditions were perfected by the 1st defendant/applicant, which he is currently enjoying.
“Rather than observing all the conditions listed above, the 1st defendant, in fragrant disobedience to the court order, flouted all conditions given by the court.
“The 1st defendant equally incited his members to disrupt, disallow, and boycott elections in South-East States, starting with Anambra State Gubernatorial election, scheduled for November 18, if the Federal Government failed to hold a referendum for the realisation of the State of Biafra.
“The 1st defendant has already declared the bail conditions given by the court, unconstitutional, before approaching this court with the application for variation. Rather than showing remorse for his actions, the 1st defendant approached this court with an application for a review of the same conditions for the bail, which he grossly flouted.
“Considering the above, that the 1st applicant has violated the conditions on which the terms of his bail were premised, we urged this court to commit the defendant to prison, by invoking the provision of Section 173 (2) (B) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015.
“We categorically state that justice would have been denied the State by this court, if the State is not protected from the offences being perpetrated by the 1stdefendant/applicant, who is currently on bail.”
All Comments