Court to hear detained Miyetti Allah president’s motion for unconditional release

A Federal High Court, Abuja, on Tuesday, fixed March 13 to hear the motion filed by the detained President, Miyetti Allah Kautal Hore, Bello Bodejo, seeking his unconditional release from Defence Intelligence Agency (NIA)’s custody.

Justice Inyang Ekwo fixed the date following the Federal Government’s failure to produce Bodejo in court for arraignment after the expiration of the seven-day order directing the FG to file charges against him.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Justice Ekwo had, on Feb. 22, given the Federal Government seven days to file a charge against the detained Bodejo.

The judge gave the order after the expiration of the earlier order granted the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) to remand Bodejo for 15 days in the custody of DIA pending the conclusion of his investigation.

The court then adjourned until March 1 for Bodejo to take his plea but on the adjourned date, the matter was not heard, and it was later shifted to today for plea.

When the matter was called on Tuesday, Bodejo was not in court.

AGF’s counsel, Y.A. Imana, told the court that though the matter was slated for arraignment, the investigating agency was yet to send Bodejo’s file to her office.

“This matter is slated for arraignment. Unfortunately, up till now, due to some problems the investigating agencies are encountering, they have not been able to send the file to us,” she said

Justice Ekwo then asked her what the problem was.

Responding, Imana said from the last date of adjournment, her office had written three letters to the investigating agency to send the duplicate case file to them but due to the complexity of the investigation, they were yet to avail them with the file.

But Bodejo’s lawyer, Mohammed Sheriff, told the court that several efforts, made to have his client released to them pending his arraignment.

“On the 6th of February when my lord graciously granted the application to keep him (Bodejo), we filed a motion and my lord said the motion would be heard on the 22nd of February,” he said.

Sheriff said when the matter was adjourned on Feb. 22 and the prosecution was given seven days to produce his client for arraignment, they filed another motion on his behalf.

“Today, the defendant (Bodejo) has spent 43 days in detention and there is no charge filed before any court of competent jurisdiction,” he said

The lawyer argued that besides, the prosecution did not file any counter affidavit against their motion on notice, even though they gave the impression that there were allegations against Bodejo.

He said their latest motion was dated Feb. 23 and filed Feb. 26, adding that the prosecution was served the same date.

Justice Ekwo, therefore, said that since the prosecution had been given a date to be heard but they were not ready, the defendant would equally be given a date to be heard.

“Counsel for the prosecution, have you seen where you have placed yourself now,” the judge asked rhetorically, before adjourning the matter until March 13 for Bodejo’s motion on notice to be taken.

NAN reports that in the motion on notice filed by Sheriff, Bodejo sought an order directing the Federal Republic of Nigeria to release the defendant/applicant unconditionally or upon any condition as may be given by this honourable court pending his arraignment or trial before a court of competent jurisdiction.”

In a seven-ground argument, the lawyer said that even if there was any criminal allegation against Bodejo, he could not operate to curtail and restrict his fundamental rights.

“The applicant was invited by the Nigerian Army on the 23 of January 2024 and was later detained at DIA and has been in their custody since then.

The allegations, if any, the respondents cannot justify the unlawful arrest, detention, incarceration, humiliation, harassment, and intimidation of the applicant forever without presenting him before any competent court,” he said.

Sheriff described the prosecution’s action as an “unconstitutional and flagrant abuse of the applicant’s constitutional rights, contrary to Section 34, 35 (1), (5) and (6) and 41 of the Constitution of The Federal Republic Of Nigeria, 1999.