Tag: Nnamdi Kanu

 

Friday Lines (42) With

Dr Abubakar Alkali

The 1999 constitution (as altered) is very clear, explicit and unambiguous that each of the 3 arms of government: the executive, the legislature and the judiciary should adhere to their separate constitutional roles and no one arm should interfere with the functions of the other arm while working towards the same objective to preserve the rule of law and protect the public interest.
.
These relevant sections state that:
EXECUTIVE: Section 5. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the executive powers of the Federation:
b) shall extend to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, all laws made by the National Assembly and to all matters with respect to which the National Assembly has, for the time being, power to make law

JUDICIARY: Section 6. (1) The judicial powers of the Federation shall be vested in the courts to which this section relates, being courts established for the Federation.

To this extent, President Buhari lacks the powers to release Nnamdi Kanu because the 1999 constitution says the President has no judicial powers and judicial powers are vested in the courts.

The combined effect of sections 5 and 6 of the 1999 constitution also asserts that the executive should allow the judiciary to do its job.
By sticking to the constitutional provision of separation of powers, President Tinubu has been able to maintain a very stable relationship between the 3 arms: executive, legislature and the judiciary largely because he doesn’t interfere with the functions of the other arms (especially the judiciary).

President Tinubu deeply respects the principle of separation of powers and this position helped him and his government in relations with the other arms of government to implement government policies and programmes.

Releasing Nnamdi Kanu will rock the boat, abuse the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers and change the current harmonious working relationship between the executive and the judiciary. The Tinubu administration cannot afford a frosty relation between the 3 arms especially at this time of very serious insecurity engulping the entire nation.

PREROGATIVE OF MERCY
Albeit the 1999 constitution has restricted the powers of the President to interfere in legislative and judicial matters based on the doctrine of separation of powers as enshrined in sections 4,5 and 6, it has given the President a window for clemency to persons either undergoing trial or convicted of an offence. This is spelt out in section 175 which grants powers for clemency on the President in consultation with the national council of states.

S.175 states inter alia, that
(1) The President may –
(a) grant any person concerned with or convicted of any offence created by an Act of the National Assembly a pardon, either free or subject to lawful conditions;
(b) grant to any person a respite, either for an indefinite or for a specified period, of the execution of any punishment imposed on that person for such an offence;
(c) substitute a less severe form of punishment for any punishment imposed on that person for such an offence; or (d) remit the whole or any part of any punishment imposed on that person for such an offence or of any penalty or
forfeiture otherwise due to the State on account of such an offence.
(2) The powers of the President under subsection (1) of this section shall be exercised by him after consultation with the Council of State.

Despite this window given to the President to exercise the prerogative of mercy, it is clear that releasing Nnamdi Kanu could potentially jeopardise the public interest and promote further violence. A political solution cannot be applied where there is clear and real danger to the public interest.

PUBLIC/NATIONAL INTEREST
Using section 175 of the constitution to release Nnamdi Kanu could tantamount to abusing the constitution due to the overriding consideration of PUBLIC INTEREST and NATIONAL SECURITY. Nnamdi Kanu, a global fugitive has made it very clear in words and actions, on both print and electronic media notably through the secessionist so-called Radio Biafra which he operates from abroad, that he is out to destabilise Nigeria using every available means and is a clear threat to national security.

Mr Kanu did not just stop at threats but he went on to establish the so-called independent people’s of Biafra (IPOB) and it’s militant wing, the Easter Security Network (ESN) which is currently waging what they call ‘campaign to achieve Biafra’ by visiting an unprecedented level of violence in the South eastern part of Nigeria. Without the gallant efforts of our military and other security agencies, the situation in the South east is better imagined than witnessed.

IPOB and ESN secessionists have been alleged to be involved in the killing of innocent people including security agents. The secessionists have also displaced hundreds of thousands of people and are on the march to creating a very serious humanitarian crisis in the South-East geopolitical zone.
In the light of all these realities, Mr President shouldn’t succumb to pressure to release Nnamdi Kanu but should allow the judiciary complete its job on Mr Kanu even if to serve as a deterrent to other wannabe secessionists who want to disturb the fragile peace in Nigeria.

Someone who is plotting to dismember Nigeria in his quest for ‘Biafra’ deserves no clemency from the same constitution he doesn’t recognise.

The President is also mandated by the constitution to implement and maintain the constitution. This is clearly stated in section 5(1)(b) that:
‘The executive powers shall extend to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, all laws made by the National Assembly and to all matters with respect to which the National Assembly has, for the time being, power to make laws’

Clearly section 5(1)(b) has given credence on the need to safeguard the sanctity of the constitution and releasing Mr Kanu could distort this requirement.

Releasing Nnamdi Kanu will violate sections 2 and 3 of the constitution which clearly indicate that there shall be a nation called Nigeria comprising of 36 states and the federal capital territory: Nnamdi Kanu has repeatedly, persistently, publicly and unapologetically said he doesn’t believe in Nigeria and called our dear motherland a ZOO.

Nnamdi Kanu should be made to understand that there is the need to think before action not action before thinking.

Let the law run its full course on Nnamdi Kanu even if to serve as a deterrent to wannabe secessionists that the civil war ended on 15 January 1970.

NOLLE PROSEQUI
The prerogative granted to Mr President on the powers to release a suspect or convict by the 1999 constitution (as altered) may be exercised through the attorney – general of the federation. In this manner, the President may direct the attorney – general of the federation to withdraw or review the charges against the suspect.
As a matter of fact, the constitution has also given direct powers to the attorney- general of the federation to discontinue a case or withdraw charges against a suspect as contained in section 174.
Without prejudice to section 174. (1) of the 1999 constitution (as amended) on the concept of NOLLE PROSEQUI which empowers the attorney-general of the federation to withdraw charges on persons undergoing trial in a court of competent jurisdiction, it must be observed that this is allowed only if it doesn’t jeopardise the PUBLIC INTEREST.
Section 174 (1) (c) states that:
The Attorney-General of the Federation shall have power –
(c) to discontinue at any stage before judgement is delivered any such criminal proceedings instituted or undertaken by him or any other authority or person.

Section 174(3) is clear that in exercising these powers to discontinue a case, the attorney – general of the federation must consider the PUBLIC INTEREST. The relevant section 174 (3) is unambiguous that:
‘In exercising his powers under this section, the Attorney-General of the Federation shall have regard to the PUBLIC INTEREST, the interest of justice and the need to prevent abuse of the legal process.
In this context, it is clear that NOLLE PROSEQUI is not a blank cheque for the attorney- general of the federation to withdraw charges at will. Indeed, withdrawing charges and releasing Nnamdi Kanu could tantamount to the following:
1. Jeopardising the PUBLIC INTEREST as Mr Kanu could potentially continue from where he stopped in mobilising members of the outlawed independent people of Biafra (IPOB) to continue their violent campaign across the South East.
2. Abuse the LEGAL PROCESS as the judiciary has commenced the trial of the Mr Kanu since 2016 and ongoing. It will be counter-productive to discontinue Nnamdi Kanu’s trial at the middle of it. The legal process is on course to prosecute Nnamdi Kanu and take the case to its logical conclusion.
There is absolutely no reason to stop the trial.
Indeed, the amended charges against Nnamdi Kanu which border on Terrorism and Treason are too weighty to be the ignored.

SENDING THE WRONG SIGNALS
Releasing Nnamdi Kanu will send the wrong signals that no matter the weight of your alleged crimes, you can walk free once you have the right connections. Just ask the politicians, elders, elite and traditional rulers in your area to go and put pressure on Mr President to release you.
It will also make a mockery of the judiciary and disrespect the constitution. Many hardworking people have lost their businesses and other means of livelihood as a result of the so-called sit-at-home order in the South East routinely imposed on the entire South east by the outlawed IPOB/ESN.

 

By Flowerbudnews

The Ndigbo Unity Forum (NUF), a pan-Igbo socio-cultural group, has tasked Igbo leaders on the need to impress on President Bola Tinubu to release Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the proscribed Indigenous
People of Biafra (IPOB).

The President of NUF, Chief Augustine Chukwudum, told newsmen in Enugu on Tuesday that the release of Kanu would end Monday Sit-at-Home permanently in South-East.

According to Chukwudum, Kanu release from detention will reduce all the actorcities going on in South-East, where criminals commit crimes on the guise of self-determination.

“We mandate South-East Governors, Senators, House of Representatives and prominent traditional rulers, Minister of State Foreign Affair, Amb. Bianca Odumegwu Ojukwu, prominent Umuada Igbo from the seven Igbo speaking states to meet with President Tinubu on this vital matter,” he said.

The NUF boss also pleaded with President Tinubu to heed to clarion call to release Kanu to check billions of naira traders loss each Monday and other days when speculations of sit-at-home are rumoured.

“The insecurity in the region has deprive our children education, thereby taking us backward academically.

“We are also recalling various appeal made to former President Muhammadu Buhari by elder statemen like late Chief Mbazurike Amaechi and late Chief Emmanuel Iwuanyanwu,” he added.

 

By Flowerbudnews
Frontline Industrialist and Philanthropist, Dr. Chike Obidigbo, has urged politicians, especially those from the South-East, against compounding the travails of the Leader of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.

Obidigbo expressed regret that some Igbo political elites are going about the ongoing popular demand for the release of the embattled IPOB leader the wrong way, stressing that the overzealous politicians are acting out of ignorance and mostly in self-aggrandisement.

In a statement made available to journalists in Enugu, Sunday, Obidigbo, who is the President of Osisioma Foundation, noted that the delicate nature of Kanu’s incarceration requires quiet diplomacy to achieve political solution, without politicising the young man’s release, the way they are going about it.

While identifying the salient complications around the IPOB Leader’s forceful rendition and consequent incarceration, the Anambra-born elder statesman said Britain’s loud silence about Kanu’s predicament raises a large red flag.

Part of the statement reads: “I woke up this morning with a very heavy heart. I am constrained to say that I am not comfortable with the way and manner our political elites are going about their request for the release of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.

“The sense I make of the cheap scramble by Igbo politicians to be identified in the growing calls for Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s freedom from prolonged and unjust incarceration is that they are merely playing to the gallery.

“It is obvious that President Bola Tinubu is not entirely the one holding Nnamdi Kanu. It was not even former President Muhammadu Buhari nor his erstwhile Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Abubakar Malami (SAN). All the AGFs, including the current one are mere legal officers for the government.

“However, Kanu’s matter is a security issue, which requires the involvement of the National Security Adviser (NSA), Nuhu Ribadu. The President may not have absolute power to release Kanu although he has the power to influence things if he so wishes.”

Obidigbo further disclosed that the other powerful elephant in the room blocking Nnamdi Kanu’s freedom is the British Government, stressing that Kanu acted against British economic interest in Nigeria.

He remarked that this economic interest, which Kanu’s agitation was negatively affecting, had been enriching the government and people of Britain, over several centuries, saying that “although the fact is well known every Nigerian elite, most are simply pretentious”.

“Everything that Kanu said or did were done in Britain, being a British citizen. But, they could not afford to arrest him on British soil, because of obvious and potential backlash.

“What Britain did was to join in the international conspiracy to lure Kanu to Kenya, knowing that Africans lack integrity and respect for laws.

“They then got him kidnapped in Kenya and forcibly and illegally renditioned him to Nigeria. They could not have done that in any other part of the world, outside of Africa, without extreme repercussions and consequences. Such can only happen in Africa,and they knew that much.

“The British High Commissioner in Nigeria showed no interest in at least speaking up against the violent kidnap and rendition of her citizen. All the Embassy was interested was to hear Kanu renounce his dream of a Biafra, probably with a promise never to support any such agitation in future,” he said.

The Industrialist said Britain’s double standards and hypocrisy betrays their long term destabilising designs against Nigeria’s socio-economic prosperity and independence.

According to Obidigbo, here was the same Britain that frustrated in 1984 the forceful abduction and return to Nigeria of Alhaji Umaru Dikko, who was not even a British citizen at the time, but merely an asylum seeker in Britain.

“Britain continues to see Nigeria as their own fertile farm land for free economic exploitation and political manipulation. They have no wish to relax their stranglehold, not now, not in the near future.

“But then, African youths are gradually coming up to challenge all the existing frustrations, deprivations, and blatant exclusion from enjoying the natural endowments of their own countries,” he said.

He noted that what the British may not reckon with easily is that the Biafra agitation had since gone beyond Nnamdi Kanu, because other elements had keyed into the struggle, thereby fuelling the agitation way beyond even Kanu’s own expectations.

Obidigbo, therefore, said that restraining Kanu, as it is erroneously believed by his captors, had little chances of disrupting the movement he founded.

“It seems that all that is hindering the actualisation of the dream Biafra is the lack of involvement of the elites- excluding imposed leaders and greedy political elites- in the struggle.

“Genuine efforts to free Kanu should be directed at the NSA as well as the Ambassadors of Britain, USA and Ambassadors of some well-meaning, and Influential countries like China, Russia, etc.

“Without the buy in of those powerful nations, the struggle will surely continue, until Biafra gets the referendum that IPOB has been demanding, however they get it.

“If Kanu is released on political grounds, without holding a referendum as IPOB demand, the struggle will most likely continue, thereby rendering elusive or delaying further the much sought after peace.”

 

Flowerbudnews

The leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has filed contempt charge against the Director General, Department of State Services (DSS), Yusuf Bichi, over his alleged refusal to obey court orders.

Kanu, through his lawyer, Aloy Ejimakor, on Monday filed Form 49 titled: “Notice to Show Cause Why An Order Of Committal Should Not Be Made,” at the Federal High Court (FHC), Abuja.

The application, marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, is dated and filed on June 10.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that while the Federal Republic of Nigeria is listed as complainant/1st respondent, Yusuf Magaji Bichi is listed as 2nd respondent/contemnor.

The IPOB leader alleged that despite being served with the orders of the trial judge, Justice Binta Nyako of a FHC in Abuja, made on May 20, Bichi had refused to comply with the said orders.

NAN reports that Justice Nyako had, on May 20, declined to grant an application filed by Kanu to set aside his 2017 bail revocation following the allegation that he jumped bail.

The judge also refused to transfer him to Kuje Correctional Centre or place him under house arrest as requested.

However, Justice Nyako reviewed conditions for visiting the IPOB leader at the DSS facility by his lawyers.

In a ruling, she varied the visitation days from two to three days in a week.

The judge ordered that Kanu should be given a safe and “clean” room to prepare for his defence with his team of counsel not exceeding five in number, instead of three lawyers that was formerly directed.

She equally ordered that Kanu and his lawyers should be allowed such a facility that is required for the preparation of his defence and be allowed to take notes.

However, in the application, Kanu alleged that the DSS DG had failed to abide by the orders.

It reads:in part: “Take Notice that the Defendant will on the ____day of _______, 2024, at the hour of 9 o’clock in the forenoon apply to this court for an order for your committal to prison for having disobeyed the order of this court made on the 20th day of May 2024, which stated in pertinent part as follows:

“You have not complied with the 3 (three) days per week visitation to the Applicant as was ordered by the court.

“You have not provided a safe and ‘clean’ room to the Applicant at the present facility to prepare for his defense with his team of counsel.

“You have not allowed such facility that is required for the preparation of the Applicant’s defence, which facility you have disallowed on every visitation since the said order was entered, as set out below:

“Interdiction, seizure, perusal and photocopying of legal documents relating to the trial preparation of the Applicant.

“By not retracing your steps after you were, on the 31st day of May 2024, served with a Form 48; Notice of Consequences of Disobedience to Court.

“AND TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that you are hereby required to attend the court on the first-mentioned day to show cause why an Order for your Committal should not be made.”(NAN)(www.nannews.ng)

 

 

Flowerbudnews

A Federal High Court, Abuja, on Monday, ordered Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) to enter his defence following the dismissal of his fresh application for bail.

Justice Binta Nyako, in a ruling, fixed June 19 and June 20 for commencement of trial of Kanu on alleged treasonable felony.

Earlier in the ruling on the IPOB leader’s application, filed by his lawyer, Aloy Ejimakor, Justice Nyako dismissed the motion seeking an order setting aside the 2017 order revoking his bail for alleged abscondment from trial.

The judge also rejected Kanu’s request to be kept under a house arrest or be transferred to Kuje Correctional Centre in the event that his application for an order vacating the revocation order of his bail was overruled.

Justice Nyako, who said that the court had severally decided on the issue of his bail plea, said the only option left for him was to appeal the ruling.

The judge held that any further application on this ground would be regarded as an abuse of court process.

“I have found and held that the present place of applicant’s detention is is a proper place.

“Any further application will be regarded as an abuse of court proces,” she said.

However, the judge ordered the Department of State Service (DSS) to always grant Kanu access to his lawyers, not exceeding five people on every visiting day, contrary to the earlier ruling granting three persons per visit.

She also increased the number of days for visitation from two to three days.

She equally ordered that Kanu must be given “a clean place” to consult with his lawyers at the DSS detention facility, and his lawyers be allowed to take note.

The judge restated that the defendant should be allowed access to a doctor of his choice.

Meanwhile, shortly after the ruling, Kanu rose from the dock and objected to his continued trial before the court.

The IPOB leader told Justice Nyako that his continued trial was illegal and unconstitutional as it violated international treaties Nigeria freely entered into.

He insisted that the Federal Government violated the constitution and other international treaties following his alleged forceful rendition to Nigeria.
“My lord, you said in your earlier ruling that you will not grant me bail until you make a determination about the reason for my disappearance.

“But you have not done so,”

“At this stage, I am of the opinion that you can’t try me without first looking into that.

“The criminals came to my house to kill me!

“I don’t understand why my trial must be conducted contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

“This is the law of Nigeria as of today,” Kanu said, waving a bunch of law books in the dock.

Continued, he said: “This court is in violation of the laws of Nigeria. Section 2(3)(f) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, is very clear.”b

The Federal Government’s lawyer, Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, interjected and asked Kanu’s legal team to call him to order.

Awomolo also told Justice Nyako not to continue to allow Kanu, a defendant, to speak from the dock against the rules of the court, even when he had legal representation.

Responding, Kanu accused Awomolo of being a terrorist.

“This man is a terrorist for conducting a trial in violation of an international treaty that Nigeria entered into. Once a treaty is entered into and signed, it becomes a law”.

“They are all terrorists! No court can try me in Nigeria. Anything done in violation of any treaty entered into by Nigeria is an act of terrorism.

“This man here is a terrorist as at today. He is a dishonest man! You are a terrorist! Who the hell are you? Follow what the law says.

“I have been in detention for over three years. You are the Chairman of the Body of Benchers and you are violating the laws of this country,” he told the senior lawyer.

He also restated that the law provided that the defendant should be given unfettered access to his lawyer in the defence of his case.

Awomolo, who was surprised by Kanu’s outburst, said he was not angry about it and that he was not a terrorist.

“I am not a terrorist and I am not provoked by the action of the defendant. It is understandable. He is only being emotional,” he said.

Justice Nyako, who said she was not a persecutor, said even if Kanu was in a prison, there would always be conditions for visitation.

She said she had given conditions which might be contrary to the DSS practice but that the security outfit must comply with the court order.

“When I am making an order, I am taking into consideration all sides.

“The defendant has to be alive to stand his trial,” the judge said.(NAN)(www.nannews.ng)

 

 

Flowerbudnews

A Federal High Court, Abuja, on Wednesday, fixed July 1 for judgment in a N1 billion suit filed by Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), against the Federal Government and Department of State Services (DSS).

Justice James Omotosho fixed the date after Kanu’s counsel, Aloy Ejimakor; the FG’s lawyer, Mercy Akeredolu and their counterpart with the DSS, A.M. Danlami, adopted their processes and made their submissions in the suit.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Kanu, through his lawyer, Ejimakor, had filed the instant suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1633/2023 for the enforcement of his fundamental rights while in detention.

In the originating motion dated and filed Dec. 4, 2023, the applicant sued the Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN), Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), DSS and its DG as 1st to 4th respondents respectively.

The suit was filed pursuant to Order II, Rules 1 & 2 of the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules 2009, among others.

Upon resumed hearing, Ejimakor told the court that he filed an originating motion dated and filed on Dec. 4, 2023.

The lawyer said he also filed a further affidavit dated and filed March 26 with six exhibits in response to 3rd and 4th respondents’ counter affidavit.

He said the exhibits had, among others, a certified true copy of a previous judgment.

He said he filed additional further affidavit on April 22 in response to the additional counter affidavit filed by 3rd and 4th respondents dated April 18.

Besides, Ejimakor said he filed a further affidavit on April 22 in response to 1st and 2nd respondents’ counter affidavit filed April 12.

The lawyer, who adopted the documents, prayed the court to grant their reliefs sought.

Akeredolu, who held the brief of Maimuna Lami-Shehu for the FRN and AGF, said in opposing Kanu’s application, they filed a counter affidavit on April 12 with one exhibit.

She said a written address also dated and filed April 12 was attached with the counter affidavit.

The lawyer urged the court to dismiss the IPOB leader’s suit.

In the same vein, Danlami, who appeared for the DSS and its DG, told the court that a 15-paragrph counter affidavit dated April 12, was filed same date with an exhibit.

He said they equally filed a further counter affidavit dated and filed April 18 with two exhibits.

He prayed the court to dismiss the suit for lacking in merit.

After the proceeding that lasted till evening, Justice Omotosho adjourned the matter until July 1 for judgment.

In the motion, the detained IPOB leader prayed for eight reliefs.

He sought “a declaration that the respondents’ act of forcible seizure and photocopying of confidential legal documents pertaining to facilitating the preparation of his defence which were brought to him at the respondents’ detention facility by his lawyers, amounted to denial of his rights to be defended by legal practitioners of his own choice.

He also sought a declaration that the respondents’ act of refusing or preventing his counsel from taking notes of details of counsel’s professional discussions/consultations with him at DSS detention.

This, he said, amounted to denial of his right to be given adequate facilities for the preparation of his defence by legal practitioners of his own choice.

He also sought a declaration that the respondents’ act of eavesdropping on his confidential consultations/conversations with his lawyers, amounted to denial of applicant’s right to be given adequate facilities for the preparation of his defence and to be.defended by legal practitioners of his own choice, among others.

Kanu, therefore, sought an order of injunction restraining and prohibiting the respondents from their act of forcible seizure and photocopying of confidential legal documents brought to him at the detention facility by his lawyers.

“An order of injunction restraining and prohibiting the respondents from their act of refusing or preventing the applicant’s counsel from taking notes of details of counsel’s professional discussions/consultations with the applicant during the counsel’s visitation with the applicant at the premises of respondents’ detention facility.

He is also seeking an order mandating the respondents to jointly and severally pay the sum of N1 billion as damages for the mental, emotional, psychological and other damages he suffered as a result of the his rights’ breach.

But in a counter affidavit dated and filed by the DSS on March 12, the security outfit denied allegations levelled against it.

In the application deposed to by Yamuje Benye, a Legal Department staff, he said 11 paragraphs in Kanu’s affidavit were untrue.

He averred that Kanu was in safe and secured custody of the DSS and he Is not detained in solitary confinement.

According to Benye, the applicant (Kanu) is allowed access to his family members and team of lawyers on his visiting days without any hindrance whatsoever.

He argued that the IPOB leader was permitted to interact and consult with his lawyers on his visiting days without any interference.

He said at no material time did any DSS personnel seized or confiscated documents brought to Kanu by his lawyers or any other person.

He added that their personnel never denied Kanu’s lawyers the professional liberty to perform their lawful duty of discussing, consulting and interacting with him.

“Applicant’s counsel are allowed to moderate size notes or pads for the visit, but exchange of materials that promotes the IPOB ideals (subject matter of applicant’s criminal trial) were strongly resisted and refused;

Applicant has consistently requested that various prayer books and religious materials be brought to him as part of his fundamental human right;” he said.

Benye averred that Justice Binta Nyako, who is presiding over Kanu’s criminal trial, had always maintained that visit to him should always be under supervision as it is the best practice all over the world.

According to him, the applicant (Kanu), along with his counsel, were permitted to consult and interact on visiting days in one of the best interview facilities of the State Security Service (SSS) to ensure maximum comfort of applicant and his visitor(s).

The official, who denied allegations that the personnel usually record their interaction during visit, said “there is no basis for eavesdropping and recording of their conversations.”

He said in line with the Service Standard Operation Procedure (SOP) of the State Security Service, all visitors to her facility are subjected to normal routine security checks and items in their possession scanned.

According to him, this is to avoid unauthorised materials making their way into the facility.

Benye said the instant suit was an abuse of court process, Kanu, having argued same issues before Justice Nyako and the matter reserved for judgment.

The FRN and the AGF, in a counter affidavit, also urged the court to dismiss the suit for being an abuse of court process.(NAN)(www.nannnews.ng)

 

 

Flowerbudnews
A Federal High Court in Abuja, on Monday, fixed March 19 for ruling in the bail application and preliminary objection to his trial commencement filed by Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB).

Justice Binta Nyako fixed the date after counsel for the Federal Government, Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, and that of Kanu, Alloy Ejimakor, adopted their processes and presented their arguments for and against the motions.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) earlier reported that at the resumed hearing of the matter, Awomolo told Justice Nyako that the case was coming up for hearing after the decision of the Supreme Court on Dec. 15, 2023.

Awomolo said the apex court affirmed Nyako’s decision of April 8, 2022, by affirming the preservation of counts one, two, three, four, five, eight and 15 of the charge which Kanu pleaded not guilty of.

The senior lawyer said that the Supreme Court ordered the continuation of the hearing on the remaining seven counts out of the earlier 15 counts.

“So we are ready to proceed with the hearing of this matter and it is in the defendant’s interest and everybody’s interest in this country to see to the end of the hearing,” he said.

But Counsel to Kanu, Ejimakor, told the court that he had two motions; an application for bail and a preliminary objection.

He said though he agreed that the Supreme Court directed the continuation of the trial, they were not ready to continue the proceeding.

He urged the court to take the bail application and the preliminary objection for court to decide whichever way, and the prosecution did not object. (NAN)(www.nannews.ng)

 

Details later