Technocrat Media, Abuja
Nnamdi Kanu’s fresh bail application has been dismissed by a federal high court in Abuja
The leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mr Kanu has been on trial by the federal government after he was re-arrested in Kenya in June 2021.
Last week in Rwanda, President Buhari said the IPOB leader won’t get bail option as he needs to “justify all the uncomplimentary things he had been saying against Nigeria in Britain”, according to Channels TV.
Binta Nyako, the trial judge, described the fresh application for bail as an abuse of the court process having been previously denied.
Mr Kanu was re-arraigned on an amended 15-count charge bordering on treasonable felony.
However, on April 8, the judge struck out eight of the 15-count charge, according to TheCable in a report.
While counts 6,7,9,10,11,12,13 and 14 were struck out, Mr Kanu is still standing on trial on counts 1,2,3,4,5,8 and 15.
On May 18, the court rejected the defendant’s bail application on the account that the application was premature.
Justice Nyako went ahead and asked the defendant to address the court on why he jumped bail for over four years.
In a fresh application on Tuesday, argued by Mike Ozekhome, Mr Kanu challenged the revocation of the bail earlier granted to him.
He prayed the court to set aside the order which not only issued a warrant for his arrest but also gave the federal government the nod to try him in absentia.
Contrary to the federal government’s claim that he jumped bail, the IPOB leader told the court that he ran for his safety after troops attacked his hometown of Afaraukwu Ibeku in Umuahia, Abia state, which he claimed resulted in the deaths of 28 persons.
But the judge held that she was not satisfied with the reasons averred by the defendant.
She said the records of the court show that Kanu was represented by his lawyer and sureties on the day his bail was revoked.
“In fact, he sureties told the court that they did not know the whereabouts of the defendant and even applied to be discharged from the matter.
“Therefore, the defendant was not denied a fair hearing.”
She said though the court has powers to vacate its previous order when confronted with a cogent and verifiable reason, “in the instant case, I have not been given any, neither have I been given any reason to set aside the order”.
“The present application amounts to an abuse of court process for attempting to relitigate an issue already decided by the court.
“If the defendant is dissatisfied, he has the appeal court to go to.
“This application is accordingly dismissed.”
Excellent journalism is expensive. It is only the same that can help to build our society and country to entrench good governance, and development and ensure justice for all.
We need your support for investigative findings and special reports to demand accountable and transparent government. DONATE today to help us stay relevant to serve your quest for accurate and authentic stories.
DONATE TO 0450702364, naira OR 0657626454, USD – GTBANK
TECHNOCRAT INNOVATIONS PLUS LTD