Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has filed a notice of appeal against a judgment by Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court in Abuja. The court had denied Kanu’s application to restore his revoked bail and transfer him to a safer place of custody.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!Kanu has been in detention at the Department of State Service (DSS) facility in Abuja since June 2021. He had sought bail restoration after fleeing an attack by security personnel at his home in Abia State.
On May 20, the court refused Kanu’s application, despite a Supreme Court ruling that he did not jump bail as the trial court had claimed.
In his appeal, filed by his legal team led by Barrister Aloy Ejimakor, Kanu argued that the trial court erred in its judgment. He contended that the DSS detention facility is not a safe or proper place for his custody, which hampers his right to a fair trial.
Kanu also argued that the trial court wrongly refused to grant his application based on an implicit finding that the DSS detention facility was unsuitable for him to prepare his defense. He claimed this decision led to a miscarriage of justice.
The appeal further criticized the trial court’s conclusion that Kanu jumped bail. The Supreme Court had previously ruled that Kanu’s flight was justified due to the illegal invasion of his home by armed military officers, which forced him to flee to secure his life.
Kanu’s legal team emphasized that the Supreme Court had acknowledged the invasion by military officers and ruled that Kanu’s flight was a reasonable response to preserve his life. They argued that the trial court’s decision to revoke bail and issue a bench warrant for Kanu’s arrest was based on a false assumption that he had intentionally avoided trial.
Kanu is seeking several orders from the Court of Appeal, including the restoration of his bail on the same or new terms, and his remand to an alternative place of custody or home detention that would ensure a fair trial.
The notice of appeal underscores that the prosecution’s extrajudicial actions made it impossible for Kanu to attend court, and that his absence should not be construed as bail-jumping. The appeal seeks to correct the trial court’s perceived misjudgments and ensure a fair legal process for Kanu.
