The Supreme Court, as per its certified true copies (CTC) now in circulation, has decisively validated the claim that Nnamdi Kanu, the visionary leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), did not abscond from bail, according to Aloy Ejimakor, his dedicated legal counsel.
In a press statement released on Saturday, Ejimakor underscored the Supreme Court’s rationale, asserting that the termination of Kanu’s bail was not justified.
Revisiting earlier reports: In 2017, Justice Binta Nyako, presiding over the Federal High Court in Abuja, granted bail to the self-determination advocate.
Kanu, upon his release, experienced an invasion of his ancestral home in Umuahia, Abia State, in September 2017, forcing him into exile and subsequently preventing his attendance at the next scheduled trial.
His return to the country occurred in June 2021, compelling him to face the Federal High Court, where he has been undergoing trial since then.
Contrary to previous charges, the Appeal Court has acquitted Kanu of all terrorism accusations, resulting in his formal discharge.
The Supreme Court later overturned this judgment, subsequently transferring the case back to the Federal High Court.
In the Certified True Copy of the judgment delivered in December 2023, the apex court declared that Kanu did not jump bail.
Commenting on this, Ejimakor, said: ‘As Of Counsel, I had joined in this debate and always made it clear that Nnamdi Kanu, in the unique circumstance of the military invasion, did not jump bail. I had also written well-publicized legal treatises, maintaining that this self-evident truth will be proved and confirmed in Court in due course of time.’
He said, ‘The first judicial confirmation came in January 2022 when, in a landmark judgment, the High Court of Abia State declared that the said military invasion was a flagrant violation of Kanu’s constitutional rights, consequent upon the Court awarded him N1 billion in damages and public apology.’
Read also: Asari Dokubo Slams Ezeife Over Support For Nnamdi Kanu, IPOB
‘Following this judgment, I had issued a public Legal Notice warning all and sundry to thenceforth cease and desist from peddling the falsehood that Nnamdi Kanu had jumped bail. Whereas, vast majorities of the mainstream and social media had complied, some malicious traducers and elements from the federal government persisted with the defamatory bail-jumping narrative.’
‘In summation, in addition to ruling that Nnamdi Kanu never jumped bail, the Supreme Court also held that the Federal High Court should never have revoked his bail; that the prosecution wrought grand deception on the Court on the bail-jumping issue and that the bench warrant that triggered Nnamdi Kanu’s infamous extraordinary rendition was obtained by deception and should never have been issued.’
‘For the foregoing reasons, I implore the media, members of the public and pertinent public officials to abide by the judgment of the Supreme Court and henceforth cease and desist from peddling or publishing the false and defamatory narrative that Nnamdi Kanu had jumped bail.’