Nnamdi Kanu Challenges Bail Conditions

The leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, has challenged the bail conditions granted him by Justice Binta Nyako of an Abuja Division of the Federal High Court.

In a motion dated July 1, Kanu seeks to challenge some of his bail conditions, which includes number of persons he was allowed to see, his lawyer Ifeanyi Ejiofor, told the Premium Times on Saturday.

The IPOB leader was granted bail on April 25, on 12 conditions, some of which require him to avoid a crowd of more than 10 people.

He and four other members of his group are facing prosecution by the Nigerian government for alleged treasonable felony and other offences.

Mr Ejiofor had in April said his client would seek the court to interpret some bail conditions as they violates his fundamental rights as enshrined in the constitution.

The lawyer confirmed today (Saturday) that the application has been filed on behalf of Kanu.

“An order of this honourable court varying the bail conditions given to the first defendant/applicant on April 25, 2017, by vacating paragraph 2(vii) and (viii) in the said conditions, which stipulates ‘that the first defendant should not be seen in a crowd exceeding 10 people; and that the defendant should not grant any interviews, hold or attend any rallies, respectively”.

“Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as (amended) presume as innocent citizens charged with criminal offence, until guilt is proved.

“Paragraph 2(vii) in the order, which stipulates that the first defendant/applicant cannot be seen in a crowd exceeding 10 people, contradicts the applicant’s right to freedom of association, and peaceful assembly granted by Section 40 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, (as amended).

“Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as (amended) provides for citizens’ rights to freedom of expression and press.

“The bail conditions granted the first defendant/applicant, particularly conditions in paragraph 2(vii) and (viii) in the said order, clearly discriminated against the first defendant/applicant, and subjected him to certain disabilities and restrictions,” he said.