The Sureties of the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu, are expected to provide him in court tomorrow.
Nnamdi kanu’s whereabouts is yet to be known following the invading of his home in Umuahia by men of the Nigerian army, under the Operation Python Dance II.
Fate of Kanu’s sureties will top one of the issues Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court Abuja, will decide in court tomorrow in one of the applications initiated by the federal government.
Recall that the federal government in one of the applications has asked the court to revoke the bail granted to Kanu in April on the grounds of ill-health which appeared to have been allegedly breached by the IPOB leader since he was allowed home on bail.
Kanu may have put his sureties on imprisonment path should he fail to show up in court tomorrow for the hearing of the felony case against him.
The Federal Government is arraigning Kanu and three others before a Federal High Court in Abuja on a five count criminal charge bordering on treasonable felony.
Kanu’s sureties were the Chairman of the Senate’s South East Caucus, Eyinnaya Abaribe; a Jewish priest, Immanuu-El Shalom and an accountant and Abuja resident, Tochukwu Uchendu.
However, speaking on the legal implication of Kanu’s failure to appear in court on the next adjourned date, Special Assistant to President Muhammadu Buhari on Prosecution, Chief Okoi Obono-Obla, told New Telegraph that Kanu has violated all the conditions prescribed by the court and government had sought the revocation of his bail.
He said, “Following the military exercise carried out by the military in Umuahia, Abia state and the subsequent proscription of IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu, has not been seen and may have gone underground.
“So, it is not likely that he will appear in court on the next adjourned date for fear of being arrested by the police or security agencies.
“Kanu had sureties that entered into recognizance or signed bail bonds as ordered by the court that led to his release.
“The position of the law as provided under Section 173 (1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, is that, a defendant whom recognizance was entered on his behalf and who is subsequently released on bail is bound to appear before the court at every time and place to which during the course of the proceedings, the hearing may from time to time be adjourned.
“It follows that if Kanu fails to appear before the Federal High Court on the next adjourned date, the judge will likely order a warrant for his arrest.
“The implication of the failure of Kanu to appear in court on the next adjourned date on those who stood sureties for his recognizance is that his recognizance shall be forfeited.”
Comments