The leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, who has been standing trial on various charges, has debunked media reports and insinuations that he dictated to the court the conditions on which to continue his trial.
His lead lawyer, Aloy Ejimakor, clarified this, at the weekend, in a statement marked, ‘Corrigendum: Mazi Nnamdi Kanu never gave any conditions for his trial, as some media outlets had reported.’
Ejimakor stated that his reaction was a sequel to media publications “purporting that, at the last hearing of his case on April 17, 2024, Kanu had given conditions for his trial.”
Describing any such publication, regardless of how well-intentioned, as misleading, Ejimakor stated that the main issue during the last court hearing of Kanu’s matter was their application to have Kanu’s bail reinstated in line with the clear and unequivocal pronouncement of the Supreme Court in its judgment of December 15, 2023.
Ejimakor said: “The kernel of our argument for bail restoration pivots on the determination made by the Supreme Court to the effect that Kanu’s bail was revoked in error, based on the misrepresentation or false premise that he had jumped bail, of which the Supreme Court made a finding that he did not.”
According to the lawyer, who referred to some sections of the Supreme Court judgment, “the Respondent (Kanu) was on bail, therefore, in the custody of the law when his home was illegally invaded by heavily armed military officers, causing him to flee from his home and the country to secure his life. In the face of such an attack, it was responsible for him to flee to secure his life and physical well-being.”
“That is what any normal and reasonable human being would do in that circumstance to preserve his life and physical well-being. It is glaring that the consequences of that attack were intended or foreseeable. This is not arguable. The respondent did not intentionally and knowingly fail to appear in court.”
According to Ejimakor, it was based on this that Kanu applied to the trial court for an order revoking his bail, forfeiting the amount securing the bail bond of his sureties and an order issuing a bench warrant for his arrest.
