The Nigerian government has ordered for the immediate incarceration of the leader of the Indigenous people of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu.
The FG urged a federal high court in Abuja to revoke the bail it granted the IPOB leader and return him back to prison. Kanu was granted bail on April 25th, 2017 on health grounds.
The government cited Kanu’s alleged threat to stop elections from holding in all South East states unless a referendum is granted on whether Biafra should secede or not.
The Federal Government stated, “The offence for which he (Kanu) is standing trial is not ordinarily bailable; the court, not withstanding, granted bail to the 1st defendant/applicant (Kanu) on health grounds on 25th April 2017.
Among other conditions for the bail of the 1st defendant is that he should not be seen in a crowd exceeding 10 people; that he should not grant any interviews, hold or attend any rallies; that he should file, in court, medical updates of his health status every month. The bail conditions were perfected by the 1stdefendant/applicant, which he is currently enjoying.
Rather than observing all the conditions listed above, the 1st defendant, in flagrant disobedience to the court order, flouted all conditions given by the court.
The 1st defendant equally incited his members to disrupt, disallow and boycott elections in South East states, starting with Anambra State gubernatorial election scheduled for November 18 if the Federal Government failed to hold a referendum for the realisation of the state of Biafra.
The 1st defendant has already declared the bail conditions given by the court unconstitutional before approaching this court with the application for variation. Rather than showing remorse for his actions, the 1st defendant approached this court with an application for a review of the same conditions for the bail which he grossly flouted.
Considering the above, that the 1st applicant has violated the conditions on which the terms of his bail were premised, we urged this court to commit the defendant to prison by invoking the provision of Section 173(2)(B) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015.
We categorically state that justice would have been denied the state by this court if the state is not protected from the offences being perpetrated by the 1stdefendant/applicant, who is currently on bail.”