Posted by Sunny Nwankwo, Aba | 30 March 2019 | 482 times
The counsel representing the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) and Director of Radio Biafra, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu; Barrister Aloy Ejimakor said that he is not aware of the decision of Kanu’s sureties to withdraw their suretyship.
Prosecution counsel in Kanu’s trial; M.S. Labaran had on Thursday, March 28, informed Justice Binta Nyako that all three persons who stood surety for Kanu had since applied to withdraw from the matter which prompted Nyako to issue a bench warrant for the arrest of the leader of the IPOB, after revoking the bail it had earlier granted him. This is as Nyako relied on Section 352(4) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, ACJA, 2015, saying that the court would proceed with his trial in absentia.
But Ejimakor in a release issued to journalists by IPOB spokesman, Emma Powerful described the report making rounds in the media that Kanu’s sureties have withdrawn their suretyship as inaccurate.
According to Ejimofor, contrary to the reports in the media the sureties were yet to withdraw their suretyship, stating that sureties have constantly accused the Nigerian Army for invading Kanu’s home which they reportedly said was the reason they were yet to produce Kanu in court.
The release by Powerful, while quoting Ejimofor read “The reports in the media quoting Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako as stating (when revoking Nnamdi Kanu’s bail on March 28, 2019) that the ‘three sureties who bailed Kanu had applied to the court to withdraw their suretyship’ is inaccurate”.
“I should know because I represent one of the sureties and we never made such application, or anything close to it”.
“On the contrary, the sureties have been fighting to stay on as sureties while pointing to the army invasion of Kanu’s home as the sole and proximate reason for their inability to produce Kanu in Court. That argument is still pending a hearing in a suretyship proceeding that was adjourned sine die at the time of the entry of the Order of bail revocation and the ensuing bench warrant”.
“For the foregoing reasons, we are currently studying the record of proceedings of the said March 28 hearing to see whether it will be necessary for the sureties to file fresh processes to protect the integrity of their suretyship relationship with Nnamdi Kanu, which is still valid and subsisting”.
•Excerpted from The Nation report
No comments yet. Be the first to post comment.