ABUJA – The Federal High Court in
Abuja, on Monday, deferred further proceeding on the treasonable felony charge
against the ‘missing’ leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra,
IPOB, Mr. Nnamdi Kanu, till Febraury 20, 2018.
Nnamdi Kanu missing ? Trial
Justice Binta Nyako adjourned the matter at the instance of the Federal
Government which notified the court of the absence of its prosecutor, Mr.
Shuaibu Labaran who is currently attending a seminar outside the country.
Consequently, the prosecution, in a letter to the court, applied for the case
to be adjourned till next year for continuation of trial and to enable those
that stood surety for the IPOB leader whose whereabouts has remained unknown,
to produce him before the court.
Already, Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe who was one
of the three persons that stood surety for Kanu has applied to be discharged by
the court, insisting that he lacks the capacity to produce the defendant for
continuation of his trial. The court had on October 17, ordered Abaribe, a
Jewish High Priest, Emmanu El- Salom Oka BenMadu, and an accountant, Tochukwu
Uchendu, to produce the IPOB leader or face jail term/forfeiture of their bail
bond.
It will be recalled that Justice Nyako had in a ruling on April 25,
released Kanu on bail after he had spent a year and seven months in detention,
though the court okayed four other pro-Biafra agitators who are facing trial
with him- Chidiebere Onwudiwe, Benjamin Madubugwu, David Nwawuisi and Bright
Chimezie- to remain in prison custody. To secure Kanu’s release, Abaribe,
El-Shalom and Uchendu, on April 28, signed an undertaking to ensure attendance
of the 1st defendant who was granted bail on health ground, in court for his
trial.
Meawhile, in his fresh application, Abaribe who is representing Abia
South Senatorial District, applied for damages against the Nigerian Army. He is
praying the court to compel the Chief of Army Staff, Lt.-Gen. Tukur Buratai to
pay N10million to him for the psychological trauma he has gone through
following extra-judicial self-help actions of the Army he said led to Kanu’s
dissapearance.
Abaribe equally applied for an order compelling Buratai to
offset all expenses he incurred in the cause of the trial of the IPOB leader.
The lawmaker prayed the court to revoke the undertaking he took on behalf of
Kanu and discharge him as a surety in the matter. He told the court that the
Nigerian Army had in the course of military operations in Abia state from
September 11, visited Kanu’s residence, adding that it was reported in the
media that there was shooting and fracas during the visit.
He said Kanu “has
not been seen again nor reached on phone by the Applicant, neither is he
reported in any news media as seen by any persom, nor made any statement on any
issue”. Abaribe told the court that he “lacks capacity to produce a person
stated by the 1st Respondent to be a member of a terrorist organisation, or any person whom the 1st Respondent is reported to be interested in his whereabouts
including the after-mat of the military operations in Abia state which commenced
about 11th September, 2017”.
Specifically, Abaribe is praying the court for,
“An order of this honorable court discharging the applicant as surety of the
1st/2nd respondent, and discharging the recognizance entered into by the
applicant, and to discharge the applicant from the entire incidence of the bail
of Nnamdi Kanu- the 1st defendant/2nd respondent in charge No.
FHC/Abj/CR/383/2015: Federal Republic of Nigeria v Nnamdi Kanu, Chidiebere
Onwudiwe, Benjamin Madubugwu, David Nwawisi.
However, following a
counter-affidavit that was filed by FG, Justice Nyako maintained that Abaribe
must firstly produce Kanu before he could be allowed to withdraw as a surety in
the case. In his motion, Abaribe prayed for, “An order of the court compelling
the Chief of Army Staff, on failure to produce 1st defendant/2nd respondent, to
pay to the court the sum in the bail bond earlier executed by the applicant on
behalf of 1st defendant/2nd respondent.
“An order of the court compelling the
Chief of Army Staff to produce 1st defendant/2nd respondent before the court
and or to explain to the satisfaction of the court the circumstance surrounding
his whereabouts.
As well as, “An order of court compelling the Chief of Army
Staff to show cause why the Attorney General of the Federation should not be
compelled to initiate contempt proceedings against him for his extra-judicial
self-help conducts that have obviously frustrated the proceedings and course of
administration of justice and which actions have brought the court to some
ridicule and its power appears nugatory as well as placing the applicant in a
fixed up position.”
Abaribe predicated his application on the grounds that “Out
of patriotic consideration of assisting the judicial process to defuse the
overheating already generated in the polity and with full belief that 1st
defendant was carrying on his activities within the limits and confines of the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, applicant offered to stand
surety for him and entered into recognizance and executed the bail bond on his
behalf”.
He insisted that only the Nigerian Army could produce Kanu since it
was soldiers that had last contact with him. According to him, “The situation
was such that applicant could no longer under the circumstances perform his
obligation under the surety.
“As at the time of Chief of Army Staff ordered the
deployment of his men and material to forcefully and violently invade and
surrounded the town and residence of the 1st defendant/2nd respondent aforesaid,
he had every knowledge of the pendency of this charge and that his conduct had
the most probable effect of preventing the 1st defendant from attending court,
to continue with his trial”, he averred.
No comments:
Post a Comment