The State Security Service on Monday asked an Abuja
magistrate court to discontinue its case against the leader of
the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu.
Mr. Kanu was arraigned for criminal conspiracy, engaging in
unlawful society and criminal intimidation, which violate
Section 97, 97B and 397 of the penal code.
The presiding magistrate, Usman Shuaibu, had issued an
order for the bail of Mr. Kanu on the condition of presenting a
surety of Grade Level 16 with a landed property in Garki or
Wuse areas worth N20 million.
On resumption today, the prosecution counsel, Moses Idakwo,
told the court the accused person was yet to fully meet the
requirement for his bail.
He explained that the reason for Mr. Kanu’s continued
detention in the custody of the SSS was his inability to fully
meet the requirement for bail.
He told the court that although the service had confirmed the
office of the surety presented by the accused, the location of
the surety’s plot was yet to be ascertained.
Counsel to the defense, Vincent Obete, however informed the
court about the affidavit before it, noting that the prosecution
refused taking the necessary step to confirm the location of
the surety’s plot of land.
“If it takes this long to confirm a mere location of a plot that is
just next door to us in Abuja here, then we are in trouble,”
said Mr. Obete.
Mr. Idakwo however told the court that the SSS had stumbled
upon fresh information that had made the case outside the
jurisdiction of the magistrate court.
He therefore made an application based on section 108 sub
section 1 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, that
the case be discontinued and taken to a more appropriate
court.
In response, another defense counsel, Jude Abojeh, said the
court had given several orders to the SSS to release Mr.
Kanu on bail to no avail.
He noted that “whoever wants to come to justice should do so
with clean hands”, saying since the SSS was asking for the
discontinuation of the case, they should first comply with the
orders of the court.
He also told the court that Section108 referred mainly to a
directive by the Attorney General.
“Your Lordship, there is no such order from the AGF before
the court,” he countered.
He argued that an order was pending before the court to be
obeyed by the prosecution counsel, hence the prosecution
could not bring an application before the same court it had
disobeyed.
Mr. Idakwo however argued that the section made a provision
for an alternative if an order was not made to the AGF.
He said his client did not compulsorily need to get a directive
from the AGF.
The magistrate therefore said he had taken note of all the
proceedings concerning the disregard of his orders by the
prosecution counsel when he asked for the confirmation of the
location of the surety’s plot of land.
He added that he had already signed the affidavit from the
defense counsel noting his refusal to confirm the location of
the surety’s plot.
He said the court would look critically into the various
applications and counter applications before coming up with
its ruling.
The case was therefore adjourned till December 1 for ruling.
Like it? Share to move the topic