Leader of
the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Nnamdi
Kanu, has challenged the bail conditions granted
him by an Abuja Division of the Federal High
Court.
Kanu and four other members of his group are
facing prosecution by the Nigerian government for
alleged treasonable felony and other offences.
Justice Binta Nyako, had on April 25, 2017,
granted bail to Kanu, but dismissed the separate
bail applications filed by his co-defendants – the
National Coordinator of IPOB, Mr. Chidiebere
Onwudiwe; an IPOB member, Benjamin
Madubugwu; and a former field maintenance
engineer seconded to MTN, David Nwawuisi.
The prosecuting counsel, Mr. Magaji Labaran, had
recently amended the charges to include another
co-defendant, Bright Chimezie.
The charges against the defendants included
conspiracy and treasonable felony by allegedly
conspiring among themselves to broadcast on
Radio Biafra agitation for the secession of
Republic of Biafra from Nigeria. They were also
accused of improper importation of goods and
illegal possession of firearms.
Kanu’s bail was based on 12 major conditions,
some of which require him to avoid a crowd of
more than 10 people, as he was barred from
granting press interviews.
In his application filed on July 1, 2017, the IPOB
leader maintained that parts of the bail conditions
prohibiting him from being seen in a gathering
exceeding 10 persons, granting press interviews
and holding or attending rallies, violated his
constitutional rights.
His lawyer, Ifeanyi Ejiofor, stated in the motion
that the undesirable bail terms and conditions
were contained in paragraphs 2(vii) and (viii) of
the court’s ruling, granting bail to his client on
April 25.
Anchored on Sections 6(6), 36(5), 39, 40, and 42
of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria (as amended), as well as Section 165 of
the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015,
the motion is therefore, seeking, “An order of this
honourable court varying the bail conditions given
to the first defendant/applicant on April 25, 2017,
by outrightly (sic) vacating paragraph 2(vii) and
(viii) in the said order, which stipulates ‘that the
first defendant should not be seen in a crowd
exceeding 10 people; and that the defendant
should not grant any interviews, hold or attend
any rallies, respectively.”
Ejiofor argued that the bail conditions were
excessive, while maintaining that by virtue of
Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution, his client
was presumed innocent.
He contended that the part of the condition
barring him from being seen in a crowd exceeding
10 people contradicted his client’s right to
freedom of association, and peaceful assembly, as
guaranteed by Section 40 of the Constitution.
The lawyer added that the part of the conditions
barring Kanu from granting press interviews
constituted an infringement of the defendant’s
right to freedom of expression provided under
Section 39 of the Constitution.
His words, “Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution
of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as (amended)
presume as innocent citizens charged with
criminal offence until guilt is proved.
“Paragraph 2(vii) in the order, which stipulates
that the first defendant/applicant cannot be seen
in a crowd exceeding 10 people, contradicts the
applicant’s right to freedom of association, and
peaceful assembly granted by Section 40 of the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,
1999, (as amended).
“Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria as (amended) provides for
citizens’ rights to freedom of expression and
press.
“The bail conditions granted the first defendant/
applicant, particularly conditions in paragraph
2(vii) and (viii) in the said order, clearly
discriminated against the first defendant/applicant,
and subjected him to certain disabilities and
restrictions.”
