Justice Binta Nyako has again denied Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous people of Biafra bail.
At the last adjourned date, the trial judge, Justice Binta Nyako had adjourned the matter for May 26, however, on May 26, Kanu’s lawyer, Ifeanyi Ejiofor released a statement that the trial will not be held because the trial judge will not be available.
Ruling on Kanu’s bail application today, the judge held that the application for bail was a gross abuse of court process and an attempt to continue litigation on an issue that the court has already ruled on.
The judge said if applicants are not satisfied with her ruling they should approach the court of appeal.
Recall on May 18, the court dismissed the bail application of Mr Kanu. Justice Binta said Mr Kanu has to explain to her why he did not abide by her earlier bail conditions granted in 2017.
She held that he was at liberty to file another bail application explaining why he was absent from the case since 2017.
Mr Kanu’s counsel again filed another bail application before the court.
In the fresh bail application filed by Kanu, he prayed the court to set aside the order made on March 28, 2019, which issued a bench warrant for his arrest and directed the FG to try him in absentia.
His lead counsel, Mike Ozekhome (SAN) challenged the revocation of the bail earlier granted to Mr. Kanu by the court.
He argued against the FG’s allegation that Kanu jumped bail, Kanu had to flee for his life after the invasion of his hometown by soldiers which led to the death of 28 persons.
Kanu’s lawyer argued that his client was denied a fair hearing before his bail was revoked.
The presiding judge however dismissed the bail application saying she was not satisfied with the reason Kanu gave for his failure to appear in court for the continuation of his trial after being granted following.
The judge said “In fact, the sureties told the court that they did not know the whereabouts of the Defendant and even applied to be discharged from the matter.
“Therefore, the Defendant was not denied fair hearing.”
The judge said she has not been given any cogent and verifiable reason to vacate or set aside the previous order.
She said “The present application amounts to an abuse of court process for attempting to relitigate an issue already decided by the court. If the Defendant is dissatisfaction, he has the Appeal Court to go to.
“This application is accordingly dismissed.”
She then adjourned the matter till November 14, for mention.
