By Vivian Okejeme Abuja–
Justice Binta Nyako of a Federal High Court, Abuja, has ordered the sureties of the embattled leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, to come and explain while the defendant was not in court. Specifically, the judge ordered them to come before her and show cause why their bail bond should not be revoked, and arrest warrants issued against them. Kanu was absent in court yesterday as his trial for alleged treason was scheduled to continue. Kanu, Chidiebere Onwudiwe, Benjamin Madubugwu, David Nwawuisi and Bright Chimezie are facing charges bordering on treasonable felony.
Prosecution’s prayers
When the matter came up for hearing yesterday, prosecution counsel, Labaran Shuaibu, said the prosecution was expected to commence the case for hearing, informing court of the amended charge, filed and dated June 21, 2017. In his submissions, he said, “given the circumstances of the absence of the fi rst defendant, we are afraid that the trial may not hold in the interest of justice.
“First defendant was granted bail on April 25, 2017, on grounds of ill health and the court ruled he attend to his medical challenge and report back to the court on monthly basis. “My lord, failure to attend today’s proceedings is a breach of the bail condition. “Consequently, we urge this court to revoke his bail.
We also pray the court to issue bench warrant for his arrest.” He also asked the court to order the sureties, Enyinnaya Abaribe, Emmanuel Shalum Oka-Ben- Madu and Tochukwu Uchendu, to show cause why their bail bond should not be forfeited on the one hand, and the trios committed to prison on the other.
‘Kanu’s whereabouts unknown’
But Kanu’s lead counsel, Ifeanyi Ejiofor said he was lost because “I’m the counsel and will be called upon to explain whereabouts of my client.” When the Judge asked him his client’s whereabouts, Ejiofor said, “I don’t know where he is. Soldiers invaded his house. Soldier who went to his house are in better position to say where he is. “We were to come to court on 11 August, for definite hearing. He was willing to stand trial. On 11 Sept, his movement was impeded by soldiers.”
Abaribe wants to withdraw
One of the sureties, Senator Abaribe, through his counsel, Ogechi Ogbonna, informed the court of his decision to withdraw as surety to the 1st defendant. When also asked where Kanu was, the lawmaker said he wouldn’t know his location. At this point, the judge rejected the oral application and gave him three options to choose from.
One, Abaribe was asked to either remain the surety until the 1st defendant is brought to court, or he should say, “I cannot produce the defendant, take my bail bond, or he can say, give me time to produce him,” and his counsel settled for the third option. Counsel to the third defendant, I. Aditya, urged the court for separate trial of his client or grant him bail, adding that he needed to seek medical attention from a private physician.
..Wants N100m bail bond refund
Abaribe, a lawmaker representing Abia South Senatorial district, had applied to court to refund the N100 million bond earlier agreed to be given as part of Kanu’s bail condition. In his motion, the lawmaker cited what he described as the invasion of Kanu’s residence on September 11, during which a confrontation occurred between IPOB supporters and the Nigerian Army. According to the motion, the lawmaker said the said accused person has not been seen since the September clashes between soldiers and IPOB members.
“Since the stated visit of the Nigerian Army to the residence of the f rst defendant from September 11, 2017, the second respondent in this suit (Mr. Kanu) has not been seen in public, neither has he been reported as making any statement on any issue.” “Since September 20, the reports have been that the federal government has proscribed IPOB, and declared it a terrorist organisation.
“The activities of the Nigerian Army as affecting the second defendant are matters of state secret incapable of being unravelled by the applicant, which activities have put the second defendant out of the reach of the applicant, such that the applicant cannot reasonably be expected to produce the second defendant before this court. “The applicant lacks capacity to produce the person stated by the fi rst respondent (government) as a terrorist or a person who is of interest to the applicant,” Mr. Abaribe said.
Court rules
In her ruling, Justice Nyako said sureties should come and show cause why the first defendant is not in court.
“They should come and show cause why I should not issue warrant of arrest against them. I cannot take decision on the application that Abaribe should be discharged from being a surety, until he produced the 1st defendant before me. Abaribe can only withdraw his surety, if only the fi rst defendant is in court,” the court ruled.
On the third defendant’s prayer for private medical attention, Justic Nyako also declared: “The prison officers should provide medical attention to the third defendant. I will grant him leave for his personal doctor, only when certain the prisons cannot take care of his medical need.” Kanu’s whereabouts has been unknown since September 14 after the IPOB confrontation with the army. While his lawyer, Ifeanyi Ejiofor, insists he is in the army’s custody, the army and other security agencies deny same.