Connect with us

Nigeria News

Nnamdi Kanu’s Attorney Provides Summary Of Last Court Sessions 

Published

on

at

Nnamdi Kanu's Attorney, Ejimakor Provides Summary Of Last Court Sessions 

A lawyer, Alloy Ejimakor, who represents the embattled leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, gave a summary of the events during the last court proceedings.

Naija News reports that Ejimakor denied reports that he gave conditions for the trial of the Biafra agitator during his last proceedings at the Abuja Federal High Court.

He clarified that reports of Kanu’s legal team’s assertions that conditions were imposed for his trial before Justice Binta Nyako’s-led Federal High Court were false and misleading.

He highlighted that the crux of their plea for bail reinstatement hinges on the Supreme Court’s verdict, which concluded that Kanu’s bail was erroneously revoked due to the misconception or false assumption that he had absconded, a finding the Supreme Court negated. 

Advertisement

Providing an overview of the recent proceedings, he stated that during the latest hearing on April 17, 2024, the focus was on their application to reinstate Kanu’s bail, aligning with the Supreme Court’s clear directive from its December 15, 2023 ruling.

In a statement, the lead counsel said: “My attention has been drawn to some publications in the media, purporting that – at the last hearing of his case on 17th April 2024 – Mazi Nnamdi Kanu had given conditions for his trial. By this Press Release, I wish to make it clear that any such publication, regardless of how well-intentioned, is misleading. For the avoidance of doubt, below is the true state of affairs:

“The respondent was on bail and therefore in custody of the law when his home was illegally invaded by heavily armed military officers of the appellant, causing him to flee from his home and the country to secure his life. In the face of such an attack, it was responsible for him to flee to secure his life and physical well-being.

Advertisement

“That is what any normal and reasonable human being would do in that circumstance to preserve his life and physical well-being. It is glaring that the consequences of that attack were intended or foreseeable. This is not arguable.

“The appellant’s officials knew that their invasion of the respondent’s home caused him to turn away to secure his life and physical well-being. Yet during proceedings in the pending criminal case against him, they applied that his bail be revoked, that a warrant for his arrest be issued and his sureties forfeit their respective bail bond and that his trial in his absence be ordered because he had jumped bail and is not in court to stand his trial. 

“But they knew that their illegal actions made it impossible for the respondent to be in court for his trial. In a situation such as this one, where the prosecution has taken extrajudicial actions against the defendant in a pending criminal case brought by it and made it impossible for the defendant who is on bail to be in court for his or her trial, it is wrong to treat such a defendant as having jumped bail in the sense that he is running from prosecution or running to avoid prosecution in the pending criminal case in respect of which he was granted bail.

Advertisement
Advertisement

“The respondent did not intentionally and knowingly fail to appear in court. It was, therefore, wrong and malicious for the appellant, that had caused the respondent to flee from his home and country to secure his life, and that had therefore caused his unavoidable absence from court to inform and thereby deceived the trial court that the respondent had jumped bail.

“On the basis of this deception, the appellant applied to the trial court for an order revoking the respondent’s bail, forfeiting the amount securing the bail bond of his sureties and an order issuing a bench warrant for his arrest. It is glaring from the record of the proceedings in the trial court that it granted the said orders prayed for by the appellant with knowledge of the fact that the respondent’s absence from court was caused by the invasion of his home by army officers of the appellant.

“Therefore, the trial court knew that the said extra judicial and illegal actions of the appellant made it impossible for the respondent to be in court for his trial, that the respondent’s absence is not intentional or deliberate absence and that the respondent is not running from prosecution or running to avoid prosecution.

“In the light of the foregoing, the trial court acted unfairly and without rational and legal justifiable basis by its decisions revoking the respondent’s bail, forfeiting the amount securing the bail bond of his sureties and its order issuing a bench warrant for his arrest. The orders were made on the basis of the false assumption that the respondent jumped bail.

“It was on the basis of the order of arrest of the respondent obtained under the false pretense that he jumped bail that his extradition or rendition from Kenya was carried out”, Per Emmanuel Akomaye Agim, JSC, at Pages 10 – 13.

“In addition to the above, there is a lot more of what the Supreme Court had said against the revocation of Kanu’s bail and the consequent issuance of the bench warrant that grandfathered his infamous extraordinary rendition. To learn more, please pay some attention to Pages 18 – 20 of the attached judgment.

“It is on basis of this pronouncement that we made a vigorous submission on 17th April that the Federal High Court is bound to restore Kanu’s bail, as demanded by the Constitution at Section 287(1) thus: “The decisions of the Supreme court shall be enforced in any part of the Federation by all authorities and persons, and by courts with subordinate jurisdiction to that of the Supreme Court.

Ejimakor emphasized that Kanu’s legal team argued for bail restoration as the optimal solution to facilitate the court-ordered accelerated trial, highlighting that the stringent DSS detention conditions would mitigate the severe risks posed to Kanu’s fair trial rights. 

He underscored the ethical obligation for lawyers to ensure their clients have unhindered access to counsel and adequate preparation for defence, particularly in cases like Kanu’s, where charges carry the death penalty. 

Ejimakor clarified that they did not present any conditions to the court, emphasizing their lack of coercive authority to do so.

close button