A coalition of civil society groups, yesterday, faulted the bail
conditions granted the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB,
by Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court, stating that they
amount to denial of bail.
The group, in a statement in Abuja,
argued that it was imperative that these bail conditions be varied or in
the alternative, Kanu should be freed unconditionally to attend to his
health, adding that this would be in the overall interest of the
criminal justice system and the reputation of Nigeria as a democratic
society.
The statement was signed by Mr. Eze Onyekpere, Centre for
Social Justice; Mr. Sam Amadi; Mr. Benedict Ezeagu, Save Nigeria Group;
Princewill Akpakpan, Lawyers of Conscience; Mr. Okere Nnamdi, Kingdom
Human Rights Foundation; and Mr. Ibuchukwu Ezike, Civil Liberties
Organisation.
Others are: Chris Nwadigo, Peoples Rights
Organisation; Dede Uzor, Campaign for Democracy; and Matthew Edaghese,
Access to Rights Initiative.
According to them, the court was
reported to have stated that the only reason why Kanu is being allowed
to go on bail was because of ill health; and wondered why the same court
make it impossible for the bail to be enjoyed.
They said: “While
we admit that the exercise of discretion and the conditions attached to
bail may vary from case to case, it must be situated within the context
of constitutionalism, legality, the facts of the case and follow
judicial precedent.”
The group noted that the excessive and very
stringent bail conditions amounted to denial of bail, stating that the
first condition that Kanu must not be in a crowd of more than 10 persons
is an impossible condition to fulfill.
According to them, the
implication is that he can no longer go to a church or a place of
worship, market place, restaurant, among others, adding that he will
violate this condition if his immediate nuclear and extended families
who will welcome him number more than ten.
“This will likely
happen as he is stepping out of the prison yard. Pray, what purpose does
this condition serve?” the group wondered.
They
further stated that asking for a surety who is a senior and highly
placed Igbo person such as a senator begs the question, why they queried
the rationale for a surety of Igbo ethnic nationality?
They said,
“Under what law or which section of the constitution did the judge
derive the authorisation for this? When did the ethnic origin of an
accused person or surety become relevant for the accused being admitted
to bail? Thus, in the event Mr. Kanu finds Nigerians that are not of
Igbo ethnic extraction as sureties, they would therefore not qualify.
“And
if Mr. Kanu cannot get a senator to stand surety for him, he will not
be allowed to go and attend to his health? How many senators, in these
days of the anti-corruption drive will agree to post a bail bond for
N100 million without making themselves vulnerable to being pulled over
by the anti-corruption agencies?
“It therefore seems that in
restricting one of the sureties to be a senator of Igbo ethnic
nationality, Mr. Kanu has contrary to section 42 (1) (a) of the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), been
subjected in the practical application of the law to disabilities and
restrictions to which citizens of Nigeria of other communities, ethnic
groups and places of origin are not made subject to. There is no
precedent for this aspect of the ruling.”
Continuing, the group
said, “The condition that a prominent Jewish leader should be the second
surety is very far-fetched. The fact that Mr. Kanu claimed that Judaism
is his religion cannot be the justification for asking him to present a
non Nigerian to stand as his surety. Thus, Mr. Kanu needs a person of
Jewish nationality to free him to attend to his health! We are not
convinced that this condition is permissible under our Constitution and
laws. Imagine Mr. Kanu meets this demand and there is a default, how can
the court get access to the surety if he travels back to his country?
“To
ask Mr. Kanu not to address rallies or grant media interviews is an
extreme measure which apparently serves no purpose. This is a violation
of fundamental human rights entrenched in Chapter Four of the
Constitution. Even while in detention, he has not been restricted from
having contact with the media.”
No comments:
Post a Comment