Court Rejects Nnamdi Kanu’s Fresh Bail Application

The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, on Tuesday, denied the detained leader of Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, release on bail request.

The fresh bail application which was filed to secure a the release of Nnamdi Kanu pending the determination of the treasonable felony charge the Federal Government preferred against him, was rejected by Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court.

The IPOB's leader is currently facing a seven-count charge.

Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, the lead counsel for Nnamdi Kanu, had filed the bail application to equally challenge the revocation of the bail the court earlier granted to him.

He prayed the court to set aside the order it made on March 28, 2019, which not only issued a bench warrant for his arrest, but also gave FG the nod to try him in absentia.

He told the court that contrary to FG’s allegation that he jumped bail, he argued that his client fled for his life after his home town at Afaraukwu Ibeku in Umuahia, Abia State, was invaded by soldiers, which he said led to the death of 28 persons.

He contended that Kanu was denied fair hearing before his bail was revoked, attaching eight exhibits that included photographs, as well as an affidavit he deposed to from Isreal after he fled from the country.

The Judge, however, said she was not satisfied with the reason the IPOB leader gave for his failure to appear in court for continuation of his trial.

The trial judge noted that frok records of the court, Kanu, was represented by his lawyer on the day his bail was revoked, likewise his sureties.

“In fact, the sureties told the court that they did not know the whereabout of the Defendant and even applied to be discharged from the matter.

“Therefore, the Defendant was not denied fair hearing,” the judge said.

Justice Nyako also held that though a court could vacate a previous order when confronted with a cogent and verifiable reason, “in the instant case, I have not been given any, neither have I been given any reason to set-aside the order.

“The present application amounts to an abuse of court process for attempting to relitigate an issue already decided by the court.

“If the Defendant is dissatisfaction, he has the Appeal Court to go to.

“This application is accordingly dismissed”, Justice Nyako stated.