The Nigerian Government has urged a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja to revoke the bail granted to the embattled leader of the pro-Biafra group, the Indigenous People Of Biafra, IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu.
The Nigerian government following the stand of the Interior Minister in which he stated some days back that only the court can return Nnamdi Kanu to prison for violation of his bail conditions stated that the IPOB leader had not only breached his bail conditions but has allegedly conducted himself in manners that threaten public peace.
Recall that Nnamdi Kanu was granted bail on April 25, 2017.
The federal government in its suit further cited Nnamdi Kanu’s alleged threat that the Anambra elections amogst other South East elections will not hold until the federal government grants referendum on whether or not Biafra should secede.
In a counter-motion filed on August 1, 2017, by Magaji Labaran of the Federal Ministry of Justice, the Nigerian government urged the court to dismiss an application submitted by Kanu before the court demanding the review of his bail conditions.
The counter motion noted: “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 1stdefendant/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 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.”
