Supreme Court has affirmed that Kanu did not jump bail, says Ejimakor

IPOB’S counsel tasks UN on Nigeria’s sit

SCounsel to Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the detained leader of the Indigenous Peoples of Biafra ( IPOB), Aloy Ejimakor has stated that the Supreme Court has finally settled that his client never jumped bail, hence the bail granted him by the lower court should not have been revoked.

Insisting that Kanu did not jump bail, Ejimakor, in a statement, recalled that it was consequent upon the military invasion of his ancestral home in Umuahia, Abia State on September 2017, that forced him into exile, which made him not to attend his trial on the next scheduled date.

The lawyer stated that the first judicial confirmation that Kanu did not jump bail, “came in January 2022 when, in a landmark judgment, the High Court of Abia State declared that the said military invasion was a flagrant violation of Kanu’s constitutional rights, and consequently awarded him N1 billion in damages and public apology.”

He added that it was ultimately, on December 15, 2023, that the second and final judicial confirmation brought closure to this bail- jumping saga when the Supreme Court unequivocally ruled that Kanu never jumped bail.

Citing some parts of the judgment as delivered by the apex court, Ejimakor stated: “The respondent ( Kanu) was on bail and therefore in custody of the law when his home was illegally invaded by heavily armed military officers of the appellant ( FG) causing him to flee from his home and the country to secure his life.

“In the face of such an attack, it was responsible for him to flee to secure his life and physical well- being. That is what any normal and reasonable human being would do in that circumstance to preserve his life.

“It is glaring that the consequences of that attack were intended or foreseeable. This is not arguable. The appellant’s officials knew that their invasion of the respondent’s home caused him to run away to secure his life and physical well- being.

“Yet during proceedings in the pending criminal case against him, they applied that his bail be revoked, that a warrant for his arrest be issued and his sureties forfeit their respective bail bonds and that his trial in his absence be ordered because he had jumped bail and not in court to stand his trial.

“The respondent did not intentionally and knowingly fail to appear in court. They knew that their illegal actions made it impossible for the respondent to be in court for his trial. “