“Nnamdi Kanu did not jump on bail, will prove how FG made him flee Nigeria” – Lawyer, Ejimakor
Aloy Ejimakor, lawyer for Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the indigenous people of Biafra, IPOB, has revealed that the agitator is ready to prove to the world that he did not jump on bail in 2017.
Speaking exclusively to DAILY POST, the attorney said the IPOB leader will prove that the Nigerian government scared him away from Nigeria.
Ejimakor said the military invasion of Kanu’s residence and the threat to his life prevented him from attending his trials and fleeing Nigeria.
Nnamdi Kanu: IPOB finally reveals the country where the secessionist leader was arrested
Kanu was arrested and brought to justice on charges bordering on treason in 2017.
Judge Binta Nyako of the Abuja Federal High Court granted him bail in 2017.
Kanu, however, did not continue his trial after a military invasion of his home in Afaraukwu, Abia state.
After the military invasion, the leader of the IPOB fled the country to Europe, from where he operated and coordinated his agitation for Biafra.
A few weeks ago, he was captured by the Nigerian government in an African country believed to be Kenya and repatriated to Nigeria to continue his trial before Judge Nyako.
Upon his return, Judge Nyako ordered that he be remanded in custody at the State Services Department, the DSS.
In the midst of this, there was some crazy speculation that Kanu skipped the bail in 2017.
However, Ejimakor rejected the bail claims, pointing out that the threat to Kanu’s life had caused him to flee the country.
Ejimakor said: “Despite what he went through, Nnamdi Kanu was in a good mood when I met him yesterday, July 17th; and he’s eagerly awaiting the first chance to debunk this whole thing about him jumping on bail. To date, he has never had such an opportunity even though he previously requested it in the appropriate forum.
“In my opinion, Kanu never jumped on bail, something prompted him to flee Nigeria and not attend his trial in October 2017.
Biafra: Nnamdi Kanu’s lawyer takes stock of the state of the IPOB leader in detention at the DSS
“That something was the military invasion of his property, which was then brought to the attention of the court in a claim that has never been heard to date.
“So, perhaps this whole unfortunate incident would provide the first opportunity to air this nagging question of bail, as it will be easily shown that Kanu never made the voluntary decision not to attend his trial.” Jumping on bail takes a sort of willful act on the part of the defendant.
“Kanu’s case is purely a case of unintentional act or omission caused by the actions of the Nigerian government which tried him and therefore had a continuing legal interest in him remaining in Nigeria to be tried. In truth, this is the same Nigerian government that claims that Kanu skipped the bail and thus seeks to benefit from it, which destroyed Kanu’s ability or duty to appear at his trial.
“On the preponderance of evidence, it would be unreasonable for anyone to conclude that Kanu skipped the bond. This is not about skipping the bond simpliciter. Rather, this is a clear case of an opposing party forcing Kanu. to flee, only to then turn around and accuse him of having jumped on bail.
“If you get over the issue of Kanu’s bail, then the arrest warrant upon which his return from Kenya was based would, in hindsight, be viewed as flawed. It is a causal chain. Kanu was free on bail, the government invaded his home and to his credit, he managed to escape danger. But instead of explaining to him why he ran away, you declare him a fugitive and ultimately surrender him because of it. It’s not acceptable. The government cannot profit from its own wrong.
“The rendering can’t hold up because it was all caused by the invasion and not by Kanu.” But even if he skipped the bail, extradition, not extraordinary restitution, is the only legal way to force him back to Nigeria. But I can tell you that in Kanu’s unique circumstances, any extradition process, whether to Britain or Kenya, would have been summarily denied. This is probably the reason why Nigeria never bothered to apply for it. Better yet, extraordinary rendition can be a Pyrrhic victory, but in the long run it creates a host of legal, political and diplomatic problems for any person or entity that is complicit in it. “