The Abuja Division of Federal High Court Friday gave reasons why the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) Nnamdi Kanu, who is answering to a six–count treason charge, should not be released on bail pending the determination of his trial.
Kanu has been in detention since October 14, 2015 on trial alongside two other pro-Biafra agitators, Benjamin Madubugwu and David Nwawuisi.
They are alleged to have committed treasonable felony by the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP), Mr. Mohammed Diri. FG alleged that the defendants were managing the affairs of IPOB which it described as “an unlawful society”.
Specifically, Kanu, who is also the Director of Radio Biafra and Television, was alleged to have illegally smuggled radio transmitters into Nigeria, which he used to disseminate “hate broadcasts” encouraging the “secession of the Republic of Biafra” from Nigeria.
But the trio pleaded not guilty to the charge on January 20, even as the trial judge, Justice John Tsoho, ordered their remand at Kuje Prison pending ruling on a consolidated bail application they filed through their lawyer, Chief Udechukwu Udechukwu (SAN).
In the bail request dated, January 14, the defendants insisted that all the allegations levelled against them were bailable offences. Relying on the decided case-law in Ibori vs FRN, they urged the court to exercise its discretion in their favour considering that the law presumes them innocent until when their guilt is established.
Counsel to the accused persons maintained that his clients would not interfere with witnesses if released on bail, adding that the statement of the defendants showed that they did not commit any crime, but were only agitating for their right to self-determination under the African Charter for Human Peoples’ Right and the UN charter. Udechukwu pleaded with the court to grant the defendants bail on the most liberal term since the charge against them does not attract capital punishment.
But the Federal government, through a counter-affidavit it filed before the court, vehemently opposed the bail application. The government urged the court to refuse the defendants bail, stressing that Kanu, who it said enjoyed large followership, was likely to continue operating Radio Biafra if released from detention. FG further contended that Kanu would not likely surrender himself for trial and could escape from the country since he has dual citizenship. The prosecutor told the court that Kanu hitherto operated Radio Biafra from the United Kingdom before his arrest, adding that he has the capacity to interfere with the witnesses who it described as “civilians dwelling within the area (where) the defendants operated”.
Ruling on the application, Justice Tsoho denied the defendants bail, just as he okayed their accelerated trial. The Judge insisted that though the law permitted him to exercise his discretion in deciding whether or not the accused persons should be released on bail, he stressed that such discretion ought to be exercised “judicially and judiciously”. Justice Tsoho noted that the charge against the defendants “is a grave one that will attract severe punishment upon conviction,” adding that it carries life imprisonment.
More so, the judge maintained that the right to personal liberty of any individual takes secondary place once the issue of national security is involved. He observed that the defendants had in an affidavit they deposed in support of their bail application, averred that they have a right to agitate for self-determination. “The situation as perceived by this court is that there is conflict of interest between the applicants who insist that they have a right to agitate and the respondent (federal government) which argues that it has the responsibility to maintain peace and order.
“Personal liberty of an individual within the contemplation of section 35 of the 1999 Constitution is a qualified right that is not absolute. It can be curtailed in order to prevent a person from committing further offence. “Section 35 cannot be used as a canopy to escape lawful detention by persons suspected to have committed serious crime”, the Judge held. He said that the government tendered sufficient materials that showed that the defendants were not entitled to bail, adding that the accused persons did not controvert issues FG raised against them in its counter-affidavit.
“By virtue of the case summary, list of witnesses and statements of the defendants, it is evident that the activities of the defendants were inimical to national security”, Justice Tsoho added. He said the broadcast of Radio Biafra was aimed at causing disaffection that could lead to breach of peace in the country. “It is my candid view that the three defendants/applicants are not entitled to bail. I accordingly order that they should be detained in prison custody pending their trial”.
The court fixed February 9, 10, 11 and 12 to commence full trial of the accused persons. Prior to the ruling, a mild drama took place in the court, as two Senior Advocates of Nigeria, SAN, locked horns over who should represent the defendants. The controversy was ignited by a handwritten letter that Kanu personally addressed to the trial Judge from Kuje Prison. In the letter, Kanu insisted that the lawyer, Udechukwu, who argued his bail application, was not the person he briefed to handle the matter on his behalf.
He told the court that Chief Chuks Muoma (SAN), was the lawyer he chose to defend him in the matter. Sequel to the development, Chief Udechukwu, who decried what he termed “the biggest embarrassment since my 20 years in the inner bar”, withdrew his appearance and that of another SAN in his team, Chief Joe Agi, for the defendant. Muoma convinced the court to go ahead and rule on the bail application that was argued by Udechukwu, saying “my Lord, this is a domestic issue that we intend to sort out later.”
-Vanguard
