The leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has filed a suit at the Court of Appeal, seeking the reinstatement of his bail.
The legal brief filed by his lead counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, Esq. on behalf of the appellant, is in response to the ruling of the trial court that refused to restore the appellant’s bail, which was revoked due to his alleged failure to appear in court.
Kanu’s legal team argues that the trial court erred in revoking his bail, citing a previous Supreme Court ruling in his favour and the Administration of Criminal Justice Act’s provision for substituting bail.
“This is the Appellant’s Brief of Argument filed pursuant to the Notice of Appeal lodged on the 5th day of June, 2024 against the ruling of the trial Judge delivered on the 20th day of May, 2024 refusing to restore/reinstate the Appellant’s Bail erroneously revoked on the misrepresentations of the Respondent that the Appellant jumped bail.
“The learned trial Judge refused to restore the bail or even order home detention in spite of the affidavit evidence and the pertinent finding of the Supreme Court before the Court,” Kanu’s legal team alleged.
Kanu’s lawyers maintain that he did not jump bail but was forced to flee his home and country due to an “unlawful military operation” by the respondent (the Federal Republic of Nigeria) that endangered his life.
“The Appellant while on bail and in compliance with the terms of bail was in Afiaraukwu Ibeku, his hometown in Abia State when the Respondent devised a means of unlawfully assassinating the Appellant through a lethal military operation code named ‘Operation Python Dance’ levied by the armed forces of the Respondent in the said Appellant’s hometown,” the suit read.
According to the appeal document made available to NewsNGR, Kanu’s legal team argued that “the decision of the trial court retaining the detention of the Appellant in the Respondent’s DSS detention facilities…is a grave miscarriage of justice”.
They further stated that “the only reason behind the detention of the Appellant in the DSS facility is to prevent his engagement with lawyers of his choice and to ensure that the facilities needed to adequately prepare the Appellant’s defence are not made available to the Appellant”.
The appellant requests the appeal court to reverse the trial court’s decision, reinstate his bail with original or new terms, or transfer him to an alternative detention facility, such as house arrest or prison.
The brief sought the court’s relief to “set aside the order revoking the appellant’s bail, restore his bail, and transfer him to an alternative place of custody”.