Mazi Nnamdi Kanu again applies to restore bail

Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, or IPOB, has petitioned the Federal High Court in Abuja to have his bail restored.

In a filing titled “Motion on Notice for Restoration of Bail,” Kanu’s legal team—headed by his Special Counsel, Barr Aloy Ejimakor—asked for the restoration of bail on Thursday. This occurs just hours after the leader of IPOB, who had been upset by Justice Binta Nyako’s decision on March 19, 2024, to deny his bail application, had made his way to the Appeal Court.

Kanu, via his solicitors, requested in the document “AN ORDER of this Honourable Court setting aside the order revoking the Defendant/Applicant’s bail made on the false representation that the Defendant had jumped his bail” in an attempt to get his bail granted.

“AN ORDER Setting aside the bench warrant issued against the Defendant/Applicant, on the basis of the misrepresentation that the Defendant had jumped bail and absconded from his trial.

“AN ORDER setting aside the order of forfeiture of the bail bond of the Defendant’s sureties, made on the misrepresentation that the Defendant had jumped bail and absconded from his trial.

“AN ORDER restoring the Defendant/Applicant’s bail on the same terms upon which same was granted by this Honourable court on 25 April, 2017.

“AND for such order or further orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance of this application.”

It continued to read, “TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the grounds upon which the application is predicated are as follows:

“On 25 April 2017, the Applicant was admitted to bail by this Honourable Court.

“The Applicant was enjoying his bail when he came under attack by agents of the Complainant at his home at Isiama Afaraukwu Ibeku, Umuahia North LGA, Abia State, whereupon the Applicant fled from Nigeria in what was purely an act of self-preservation.

“The bail of the Applicant was revoked by this Honourable Court and a bench warrant issued against him upon the application of the Complainant made to this Honorable Court that the Applicant had jumped bail.

“The Applicant was, pursuant to said bench warrant, subsequently kidnapped in Kenya by agents of the Complainant and was brought to Nigeria by way of extraordinary rendition.

“The jurisdiction of this Honourable Court to try the Defendant as well as issues pertaining to his bail and extraordinary rendition was challenged up to the Supreme Court in SC/CR/1361/2022: BETWEEN FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA V. NNAMDI KANU, where their Lordships made a determined that Applicant’s bail ought not to have been revoked in the first place, being that it was the invasion of the Applicant’s home that caused him to flee in order to secure his life and physical well-being.

“The order setting aside the Applicant’s bail, the warrant of arrest and the forfeiture of his bail bond ought to be reversed by virtue of the decision of the Supreme Court.

“The bail of the Applicant ought to be restored in the interest of justice.”

The document also included the Affidavit in support of the motion for the restoration of bail, which stated that, “ I PRINCE EMMANUEL KANU, Male, Christian and Nigerian Citizen of Eze I. 0. Kanu Drive, Isiama Afaraukwu Ibeku, Umuahia North LGA, Abia State do hereby make oath and state as follows.

“I am a brother of full blood to the Defendant/Applicant, by virtue of which I am conversant with the facts deposed hereunder.

“I have the authority of the Defendant/Applicant to depose to this affidavit.

“Except as otherwise stated herein, the facts deposed to in this affidavit are derived from my own personal knowledge.

“I was informed by ALOY EJIMAKOR, Esq. the Defendant/Applicant’s lead counsel at his law office at his office at Suite 115, 2nd Floor, Deo Gractias Plaza, Utako District, Abuja FCT on 25th March, 2024 at about 6:30 pm and I verily believe him as follows:

“That the Defendant was arraigned before this Honourable court on a 15-count amended charge filed on 14 January 2022 for offences contrary to sections 1(2) (b), 16, 1, (2) (h), 1 (2) (f), of the Terrorism Prevention Amendment, Act, 2013 and section 47 (2) (a) of the Criminal Code Act, CAP C47, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

“At the threshold of the trial, a preliminary objection was raised challenging the jurisdiction of this Honourable court to hear the charge and thereby sought that the charges be quashed and the Defendant discharged and acquitted.

“In a considered determination, the application was allowed in part striking out some offending counts from the charge and retaining counts 1, 2, .3, 1. 5, 8 and 15 for trial.

“The Defendant exercised his right of appeal to the Court of Appeal where their lordships determined with the Defendant that, on account of his extraordinary rendition to Nigeria, the Court lacked the jurisdiction to try the Defendant for any offence alleged against him. The remaining counts were therefore struck out and the Defendant discharged accordingly.

“Dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the Complainant appealed to the Supreme Court which allowed the appeal and determined that this court was properly clothed with the jurisdiction to try the Defendant on the counts retained in the charge, ie counts 1, 2, 3. 4. 5. 8 and 15 of the amended charge. The Supreme Court also determined that the Defendant’s bail ought not to have been revoked. The said Judgment of the Supreme Court is here shown to me, attached hereof and marked ad Exhibit MNK 1.

“Their Lordships of the Supreme Court condemned the dastardly act carried out on the Defendant’s home which led to his self-exile and which was in no way an attempt to jump bail or to disrespect this Honourable Court.”