Special counsel to Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mr. Aloy Ejimakor, has stated that he (Kanu) did not actually jump bail as he is being accused.
Ejimakor said the prevailing scenario in his home at Afara-Ukwu Umuahia, Abia State under which he escaped for his dear life and personal safety, would not be tantamount to jumping bail.
He stated that the only logical way of determining whether he jumped bail or not is to recall the state of affairs before the military invasion of his homestead in September 2017.
Ejimakor said: “As of September 2017, Kanu was free on bail on subsisting court order; his bail was not on personal recognisance but on a bond posted by three sureties. Kanu was neither judicially nor administratively ordered to be re-arrested for breaching his bail or on account of any new charges filed; and his next hearing date was set for the next month, October 2017.”
Ejimakor said the invasion achieved a complete military routing of Kanu’s home and caused fatalities of 28 people and injuries to many, including Kanu and his parents, who were present and trapped at the premises during the incident.
“The invading forces also captured an undetermined number of occupants of the premises, some of whom are now presumed dead as they have not been accounted for to date and most significantly, Kanu himself was also unaccounted for until he emerged in Israel several months later,” he argued.
He insisted that the inevitable question should be the natural or foreseeable consequences of such a lethal military action against a defendant who was free on bail.
Ejimakor stated that bail is a written contract in which the State is the promisee, and the surety is the promisor, arguing that like any other contract, a bail is subject to universal rules of contract, including that of Kanu which is “ implied covenant on the part of the Nigerian State, that it will not in any way interfere with or impair the ability of the surety to produce Kanu whenever required to do so”.
He also pointed out that it was the same Nigerian State who had Kanu on trial and in the course of time released him on bail that ordered its army to lethally invade his home.
“It is therefore against the basic canons of equity and fairness to now allow the Nigerian government to profit from its own wrong of causing Kanu to flee and then turn around to declare him a fugitive,” he argued.