Posted by Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court in Abuja was particularly asked by the organization to ensure that the trial was fair and that the judiciary was respected in its resolution of the case, rather than to favor the federal government.
Justice Nyako was urged to do justice and release Kanu from the charges in an open letter to the judge from the Igbos in diaspora who are affiliated with the American Veterans of Igbo Decent (AVID). The letter cited the Nigerian Constitution and applicable laws.
The president of AVID, Dr. Sylvester Onyia, and secretary, Godson Obiagwu, pleaded with the judge in a letter that was signed by both of them to take into account the Supreme Court’s warnings that the bail that had been previously granted to him should not have been revoked.
Since the Federal High Court is a court of record, Justice Nyako previously ordered that Kanu’s lead counsel, Aloy Ejiamakor, submit his bail request in writing rather than orally.
With the IPOB leader’s health worsening, the group argued that the request should have been granted.
Even after he fled his house because of a government invasion, the same prisoner of conscience is still facing unfair imprisonment.
In addition to him, his parents died as a result of mental, emotional, and physical abuse. If injustice befalls Kanu, then injustice befalls the world.
Kanu was allowed to be released immediately and without conditions by the Abuja Court of Appeal last year after being dismissed from terrorist charges brought against him by the Federal Government.
Although the federal government was successful in its appeal to the Supreme Court, the court stated in a separate statement that Kanu’s bail should not have been withdrawn.
Justice Nyako is scheduled to make a ruling on the matter of Kanu’s revocation of bail and his transfer from DSS custody to either house arrest or prison on May 20, 2024.
After hearing arguments from both sides, the court set the date. Kanu’s legal team was represented by Aloy Ejimakor, while the federal government was represented by Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN).
In a plea that Ejimakor argued, Kanu, who has been in jail since 2021, asked the court to reinstate the bail that the same judge had given him in 2017.
He informed the court that, contrary to what the federal government claims, he was forced to flee the nation when the military purportedly raided his house, and that he did not breach any of the release conditions or jump bail.
He told the judge that the federal government had lied to the court in order to have his bail revoked while he was away, and he claimed that his life would have been in danger otherwise.
Additionally, while he was abroad, the court issued an arrest order against him, which he requested the court to vacate.
His legal team also filed a supplementary motion on Kanu’s behalf, requesting that he be remanded to prison or placed under home arrest instead of the DSS’s care.
Furthermore, he requested that his attorneys have unfettered access to him so that he can prepare for his defense against the terrorism charges against him. He further stated that he would not submit to trial until the Federal Government complied with these conditions, as outlined in Section 36 of the 1999 constitution.
But the federal legal team, headed by Adegboyega Awomolo SAN, was against approving all of Kanu’s demands.
No defendant has the right to tell the court how his prosecution will be conducted, according to the top lawyer, in criminal issues.
According to Awomolo’s testimony, Kanu had previously been granted bail, but he violated that order by fleeing the country under fraudulent reasons.
Since the High Court cannot overrule itself, the senior lawyer contended that the defendant’s only choice was to appeal the rejection to the Court of Appeal, and that Kanu’s new bail request was an egregious misuse of the court process.
Awomolo stated that, for Kanu’s protection, the only place he can be absolutely sure is in DSS custody in response to the request to have him removed from that facility.
He asked the court to reject Kanu’s claim that he was unable to reach his attorneys and pointed out that neither the application nor the affidavit contained any mention of any DSS agent preventing lawyers from contacting him or listening in on their conversations.