Biafra: Nnamdi Kanu heads to Appeal Court, moves to restore bail

The leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has urged the Appeal Court to restore the bail granted to him by an Abuja Federal High Court.

Kanu also faulted the ruling of the appellate court for refusing his transfer from the facility of the Department of State Services (DSS) to Kuje prison.

In 2017, the Federal High Court in Abuja granted Kanu bail on treasonable felony charges filed against him by the federal government. However, the court revoked Kanu’s bail and issued a bench warrant for his arrest after he failed to present himself as required.

In 2021, Kanu was rearrested in Kenya and extradited to Nigeria. In April 2022, Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court struck out eight of the 15 counts in the charge. The remaining seven counts were also quashed by the Court of Appeal on October 13, 2022, with the judge ordering Kanu’s release.

However, on October 28, 2022, the Appeal Court in Abuja granted a stay of execution on its verdict discharging Kanu after the federal government filed an appeal at the Supreme Court.

On December 15, 2023, a five-member panel of the Supreme Court reversed the verdict of the Appeal Court and ordered Kanu to resume his trial before the Federal High Court.

On May 20, 2024, refusing Kanu’s application to restore his bail in line with the Supreme Court ruling, Justice Nyako entered an order modifying the conditions of counsel visitation to Kanu.

However, Kanu’s lead counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, faulted Justice Nyako’s ruling on four grounds.

The notice by Ejimakor sent to Newsmen reads: “TAKE NOTICE that the Appellant, being dissatisfied with the ruling of the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, coram: B.F.M Nyako, J. delivered on the 20th May, 2024, more particularly set out in Paragraph 2, does hereby appeal to the Court of Appeal, Abuja upon the grounds set out in Paragraph 3 below and will at the hearing of the Appeal seek the reliefs set out in Paragraph 4 of this Notice of Appeal.

“The part of the decision/ruling relating to the refusal of the trial court to transfer/remand the Appellant to a safe place of custody; or restore/reinstate his bail.”

Ejimakor said the learned trial court erred when it misdirected itself on the facts and otherwise failed to properly evaluate the evidence when it wrongly held that: “on the issue of the transfer of the Defendant/Applicant to another place of custody, I have found and held that the present place of custody of the Defendant is a proper place of custody” and which decision led to a miscarriage of justice against the Appellant.

He pointed out that the court “misdirected itself or otherwise failed to evaluate the evidence showing that the current place of detention of the Appellant, being hostile or inimical to his constitutional right to a fair trial, is ipso facto, not a safe or proper place of custody, particularly with regard to the following.”

He said the learned trial court erred in law when it refused to grant Kanu’s application upon the implicit finding that the room at the DSS detention facility where Kanu meets with his counsel is not a safe and “clean” room for the Appellant to prepare for his defense.

The lead counsel said the learned trial court erred in law when it failed to exercise its “discretion in favor of the application of the Appellant and in that respect occasioned a miscarriage of justice.”

Ejimakor said the trial “court misdirected itself on the facts when it held that “having found that the defendant jumped bail, and had forfeited the surety’s bonds and discharged them from the bond and the sureties having gone on appeal on the same issues, I cannot take any steps until the outcome of the appeal.”

In his reliefs sought, Ejimakor urged the Appeal Court to “allow this appeal and set aside the decision of the trial court made on the 20th day of May, 2024.

“An order restoring/reinstating the bail of the Appellant on the same terms as earlier granted; or an order restoring/reinstating the Appellant’s bail on any new terms and conditions.

“An order remanding the Appellant to an alternative place of custody or home detention/house arrest that can accord the Appellant the atmosphere to have a fair trial.

“Any order the Honourable Court of Appeal deems fit to make in the circumstances of this appeal.”