There will be a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on Wednesday, May 20, to hear two important applications regarding Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB).
The court will decide whether Kanu’s earlier bail should be revoked and if he should be moved from the custody of the Department of State Services (DSS) to another detention facility.
The ruling will be presided over by Justice Binta Nyako who had initially granted Kanu bail [due to health reasons] on April 25, 2017. Accused of being involved in terrorism, Kanu fled Nigeria after his house was raided by the military. However, on June 19, 2021 he was apprehended in Kenya and extradited back to Nigeria where he has been held in DSS custody since that time.
Justice Nyako turned down Kanu’s request for a new bail on March 19th ,2024 but instead chose expedition pushing it over until next Wednesday.
In his latest session, Alloy Ejimakor submitted two motions as a lawyer representing indigenous people of Biafra’s leader. The first motion sought for Kanu’s removal from DSS custody claiming that restricted access to him limits their ability to prepare adequately for trial. Ejimakor argued that DSS’s continued detention of Kanu would frustrate legal processes.
With that, Ejimakor had pleaded to relocate Kanu to a house arrest or any similar type of detention and said “It’s not an uncommon appeal. For instance, people like Sambo Dasuki and Ibrahim El-Zakzaky have at times enjoyed the benefit of house arrests.”
However, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), counsel for the prosecution, has countered that motion on its lack of merit as well as reminding court’s initial decision on detaining Kanu with DSS for his own safety.
In another application, Ejimakor asked the court to set aside the revocation of Kanu’s bail, arguing that the Supreme Court held that the court was misled by the prosecution. He begged court to respect Supreme Court pronouncements under Section 287.
Awomolo said no; he maintained that when decisions are made by courts one can only challenge them through appeals which were yet to be done thereby leaving the order valid.
Justice Nyako adjourned her ruling on all applications till May 20 but ordered that Kanu’s trial should start as scheduled.
Ejimakor argued in effect that there was no way defendant could be ready for trial because it would violate legal principles altogether.
Regardless how many times Justice Nyako implored Ejimakor to commence trial, these would always turn out futile.
Ejimakor’s essential argument, in other words, was that the defendant could not be ready for trial at all because this would breach the laws totally.
Whatever Justice Nyako said to Ejimakor about starting the case went unheeded.
In arguing that the accused is not prepared for trial and going ahead with it in such a condition amounts to an infraction of legal rules, Ejimakor claimed.
All of Justice Nyako’s several attempts to persuade Ejimakor to open the case ended up as efforts in futility.
Outraged by what happened, the judge warned of an indefinite adjournment making Ejimakor ask for a short break. Jaco took 10 minutes during which he talked privately with his client.
On resuming, Ejimakor confirmed that the accused was not ready for trial.
Alternatively, Awomolo insisted on proceeding with court proceedings while maintaining that prosecutors had all their documentary evidence and written statements ready. The defendant should have no control over court’s timetable
Justice Nyako ultimately postponed her decision until next time which will be on May 20th.