The Federal Government have urged the Federal High Court to revoke bail granted to the leader of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu and return him to prison.
The request is reportedly a counter-motion filed in response to an application by the IPOB leader to have his bail conditions reviewed.
The counter-motion, dated August 1, 2017,was filed by one Magaji Labaran of the Federal Ministry of Justice.
The Federal Government had earlier said it is up to the court to decide if Kanu had flouted his bail conditions.
In the counter-motion, FG said the offence for which Nnamdi Kanu is standing trial is not a bailable one in normal circumstances.
FG said he has continuously flouted his bail conditions, and has incited members of the public to disturb public order.
The Federal Government cited the planned boycott of the November 18 Anambra elections as an example.
Read the statement below:
The offence for which he (Nnamdi Kanu) is standing trial is not ordinarily bailable; the court, not withstanding, granted bail to the 1st defendant/applicant (Kanu) on health grounds on 25th April 2017.
Among other conditions for the bail of the 1st defendant is that he should not be seen in a crowd exceeding 10 people; that he should not grant any interviews, hold or attend any rallies; that he should file, in court, medical updates of his health status every month. The bail conditions were perfected by the 1stdefendant/applicant, which he is currently enjoying.
Rather than observing all the conditions listed above, the 1st defendant, in fragrant disobedience to the court order, flouted all conditions given by the court.
The 1st defendant equally incited his members to disrupt, disallow and boycott elections in South East states, starting with Anambra State gubernatorial election scheduled for November 18 if the Federal Government failed to hold referendum for the realisation of the state of Biafra.
The 1st defendant has already declared the bail conditions given by the court unconstitutional before approaching this court with the application for variation. Rather than showing remorse for his actions, the 1st defendant approached this court with an application for a review of the same conditions for the bail which he grossly flouted.
Considering the above, that the 1st applicant has violated the conditions on which the terms of his bail were premised, we urged this court to commit the defendant to prison by invoking the provision of Section 173(2)(B) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015.
We categorically state that justice would have been denied the state by this court, if the state is not protected from the offences being perpetrated by the 1stdefendant/applicant, who is currently on bail.
