From Godwin Tsa, Abuja
The Abuja division of the Federal High Court has fixed March 19 to rule on a fresh application filed by the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, seeking his release on bail, pending the determination of the treasonable felony charge brought against him by the Federal Government.
Justice Binta Nyako who fixed the date equally announced the court’s decision to resume a full-blown hearing of the case against Kanu on March 20.
Justice Nyako adjourned the matter after she listened to arguments. canvassed by counsel to Kanu, Mr. Alloy Ejimakor, and that of the prosecution counsel, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN.
Ejimakor who drew the attention of the court to Kanu’s bail application dated February 5,further told the court that the defendant had also filed a notice of preliminary objection challenging the competence of the charge pending against him. He urged the court to grant Kanu bail on “most liberal terms” owing to his deteriorating health.
In addition, Ejimakor submitted that there was no dispute that the IPOB leader has a serious heart condition that was confirmed by a federal government-owned hospital.
“Our humble submission is that the medical condition of the defendant speaks for itself and the health challenge persists, despite the treatment offered him by the detaining authority,” Ejimako added.
He maintained that Kanu’s continued detention by the Department of State Services, DSS, posed a threat to his life.
The defence lawyer alleged that the delay in the prosecution of the embattled IPOB leader was the fault of the government which he said had repeatedly amended the charge.
Responding to the court’s observation that Kanu once jumped bail, Ejimako argued that developments that happened in the past had turned academic given the findings and judgments of various courts on the matter. On the preliminary objection dated February 19, Kanu’s counsel urged the court to direct that before the trial could commence, the respondents must refrain from seizing documents from lawyers, stopping lawyers from taking notes during their visit to the defendant at the DSS and equally eavesdropping on conversation with Kanu.
He further urged the court to order that the prosecution l must stop the violation of his client.
Alternatively, he sought an order that before the commencement of trial, a non-custodial centre be created for Kanu to engage with lawyers of his own choice.
But in opposing both the fresh bail application and the preliminary objections, the prosecution counsel, Chief Awomolo, SAN, described them as an abuse of the court process.
FG’s lawyer argued that it would be wrong for the court to allow Kanu’s counsel to dictate how the proceedings should be conducted.
He said it was an insult for Kanu’s lawyer to list what must be done before the trial would commence, adding that the defendant’s rights were never breached by the DSS.
Awomolo, SAN, told the court that the security agency has been diligent in protecting Kanu’s life.