Nnamdi Kanu asks A’Court to restore bail

In the alternative, he is seeking the order of the appellate court setting aside the ruling of the trial court and reinstating his bail on any new terms and conditions.

Justice Binta Nyako of the Abuja division of the Federal High Court had in her ruling of May 20, 2024, refused to restore the bail she had earlier granted Kanu.\ The judge equally refused to grant Kanu’s request for a home detention outside the custody of the Department of State Security (DSS), where he is currently being held. The appeal dated July 19 and filed by his special counsel, Aloy Ejimakor is equally praying for an order remanding him in an alternative place of custody or home detention/house arrest that can accord the Appellant the atmosphere to have a fair trial.

He raised the following questions for the determination of the appellate court:

“Was the trial court right to refuse the prayers for the setting aside of the order revoking appellant’s bail and restoring the bail on the purport that the trial court had previously found that the appellant had jumped bail, forfeited the sureties bonds and Appellant’s sureties having been discharged and proceeded to appeal, the trial court must await the outcome of the appeal when it was brought to the attention of the trial court that the revocation of the appellant’s bail was found by the Supreme Court of Nigeria to have been obtained by deception and made in error and when the sureties had not, in truth, forfeited their bail bonds and had not been discharged?

“Whether in the circumstances of the instant case, the trial court rightly held that the Department of State Security detention facility is a proper or safe place of custody as against transferring the Appellant to an alternative place of detention given the affidavit evidence placed before the trial court?

Ejimakor submitted that the learned trial Judge was manifestly wrong to have refused the prayers for the setting aside of the order revoking appellant’s bail and restoring same on the purport that the trial court had previously found that the appellant had jumped bail, forfeited the sureties’ bonds and appellant’s sureties having gone on appeal over forfeiture of their bonds, the trial court would therefore await the outcome of the appeal.

He predicated his submission on the facts that it was brought to the attention of the trial court that the said previous revocation of the appellant’s bail was later found by the Supreme Court of Nigeria to have been made in error and was even obtained by the deception of the respondent.

“We submit with humility that the whole essence of restoring the bail of the Appellant in the circumstances is simply to allow him temporary pre-trial freedom and not to discharge the Appellant such that the strenuous oppositions thereto in the face of the finding of the Supreme Court and the strict posture of the trial Court is unnecessary.  On the above submissions, the lawyer referred the country yet to the case law in Suleman & Anor V Plateau State (2008) LPELR-3126(SC) (Pp. 19-20 paras. E).

In addition to the above contention, the appellant argued that the trial court could even grant him new bail on the same or different terms, notwithstanding that the applicant’s previous applications for same were refused, since application for bail founded on different grounds and circumstances could be variously entertained.

“Suffice it to say that regardless of whether the bonds were forfeited and the sureties discharged (which is in fact not the case), the pendency of an appeal by the sureties (not the Appellant) against such or the attempt to forfeit their bonds (which is in fact the true state of affairs) is not an estoppel against restoration of Appellant’s bail, the revocation of which the Supreme Court held against, especially as the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 (ACJA 2015) and/or the discretion of the trial Court permits the substitution of recognizances, bonds and sureties,” Ejimakor submitted.

It is also the submission of the appellant that in so far as he is detained in the DSS detention facilities, his rights to fair trial would be adversely impaired in that the appellant would never get the facilities to prepare his defence or have unhindered access to lawyers of his choice.

“This, no doubts, puts the appellant in a disadvantageous position in favour of the respondent, which becomes more egregious even when the appellant is facing capital offences that carry the death penalty.

“We therefore submit that – as far as the Appellant’s right to fair trial is concerned – the trial court was in grave error when the court held that the Department of State Security is a proper place of custody, more so when the trial court did not give any reason for the said decision. We submit that the decision of the trial court to wit: “That on the issue of transfer of the defendant/applicant to another place of custody, I have found and held that the present place of custody of the defendant is a proper place of custody” is arbitrary, unfounded and perverse. There was no such place where the trial court made such evaluation and came to the conclusion that the DSS facility is a proper place of custody for the Appellant, especially given the significant affidavit evidence adduced by the appellant in the opposite.

-the sun