Kanu was in custody when his house was illegally invaded

[Ololade Kehinde]

In a recent publication by the Daily Post, Aloy Ejimakor, the principal counsel representing Nnamdi Kanu, the esteemed leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), categorically refuted claims of having presented conditions for the trial of his client during the recent proceedings at the Federal High Court in Abuja.

Ejimakor elucidated that the reports suggesting that Kanu’s legal team stipulated conditions for his trial before Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court were both inaccurate and misleading.

Providing an overview of the events that transpired during the most recent court hearing on April 17, 2024, Ejimakor emphasized that the primary focus of the proceedings was their application for the reinstatement of Kanu’s bail. This application, he noted, was grounded in the unequivocal judgment delivered by the Supreme Court on December 15, 2023.

The crux of their argument for the restoration of bail, according to Ejimakor, hinged on the Supreme Court’s determination that the revocation of Kanu’s bail was premised on a misrepresentation or false premise. Specifically, it was erroneously believed that Kanu had breached his bail conditions by jumping bail, a finding which the Supreme Court conclusively refuted.

In a statement, the lead counsel said: “My attention has been drawn to some publications in the media, purporting that – at the last hearing of his case on 17th April 2024 – Mazi Nnamdi Kanu had given conditions for his trial. By this Press Release, I wish to make it clear that any such publication, regardless of how well-intentioned, is misleading. For avoidance of doubt, below is the true state of affairs:
The respondent (Nnamdi Kanu) was on bail and therefore in custody of the law when his home was illegally invaded by heavily armed military officers of the appellant causing him to flee from his home and the country to secure his life. In the face of such an attack, it was responsible for him to flee to secure his life and physical well being.

Ejimakor concluded by emphasizing that the implications of the attack were either intended or easily foreseeable, rendering the argument for Kanu’s flight from the country unassailable.