Justice Binta Nyako of a Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday refused to order the release of the detained Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe from the custody of the Department of State Security (DSS).
The DSS arrested Abaribe on June 22 in what his lawyer alleged was for gun running and activities of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB).
Abaribe is one of the sureties for the leader of IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu, who was granted bail in April 2017, but has not been seen since the army invaded his country in Abia State, September 2017.
The other sureties are, a Jewish Priest, Ben El Shallom and an Accountant, Tochukwu Uchendu,
They had all stood sureties for Nnamdi Kanu in the sum of N100m each.
However, the whereabouts of Kanu has remained a mystery following his disappearance, prompting the prosecution to ask the court to revoke Kanu’s bail, and that the sureties forfeit their bail bond or be remanded in prison custody until they produce the defendant.
When the matter came up yesterday before Justices Nyako, Abaribe’s counsel, Chukwuma Umeh (SAN), told the court that his client who was arrested last weekend was brought to court in chains by the DSS.
While stating that Abaribe since his arrest has been held incommunicado by the security agency without been charged to court, Ume said Abaribe’s arrest is capable of jeopardizing the trial.
He therefore urged the court to order the release of Senator Abaribe from DSS custody.
Responding, the trial judge stated that since the arrest of Abaribe was not a matter before him, their is nothing the court could do.
However, following much pleading by Abaribe’s counsel, Justice Nyako requested for the DSS official who brought Abaribe to court and ordered that he be allowed access to his lawyers.
“Allow him have access to his counsel, you cannot hold him incommunicado. No matter what reason his is been arrested, allow him access to his lawyers”, the court ordered.
Earlier, Umeh and counsel to the second surety, Aloy Ejimakor informed the court of a motion they both filed challenging the jurisdiction of court to entertain the matter on the grounds that the order served on their clients to show cause why they should not forfeit their bail bond for Kanu or be remanded in prison custody did not comply with the law.
They therefore urged the court to set aside the order for want of jurisdiction.
However, counsel to the 3rd surety, Frank Chude, informed the court of an application he filed on the 25th of June, asking the court to order for the arrest of Nnamdi kanu.
Tochukwu Uchendu, in the motion filed on his behalf by Chude is seeking for an order of court directing the police to arrest and produce Nnamdi Kanu in court.
He also sought for an order of court suspending his obligation on the bond until the whereabouts of Nnamdi Kanu is established.
The motion which was brought pursuant to section 174 (A) and (B), 177 and 179 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 and section 36 of the nation’s constitution, was rooted on four grounds.
In a 23 paragraphs affidavit in support of the motion, Uchendu, predicated his motion on the grounds that the court had granted the 1st defendant (Kanu) bail on the 25th day of April, 2017.
He pointed out that while Kanu was on bail; he had a confrontation with the military, an arm of the state, and “that since then his whereabout is unknown and he has not being seen”.
Uchendu, in an affidavit he deposed to averred that after the invasion of the residence of Kanu by the Nigerian Army on September 14, 2017, he has not been seen in the public since.
“I am unable to communicate with the 1st defendant and his whereabout unknown to me”, he said.
Uchendu further averred: “That Kanu has not been seen in public since the 14th day of September, 2017, when the agents of the state (soldiers) invaded his house in Isiama Afaraukwu, Abia state.
“That the invasion of Kanu’s home on 14th September by the military has ostensibly frustrated his bail and made it impossible for me to bring him to court as stipulated by the terms of the bail”.
He therefore pleaded the court not to punish him for the unforeseen circumstances created by the Nigerian soldiers which has practically frustrated his duty as surety.
Counsel to the Federal government, Shuaibu Labaran, was willing to respond to the applications orally on point of law, not minding that he was just been served in court.
However, following a request by Kanu’s lawyer, Ifeanyi Ejiofor that he be formerly served with the processes so as to respond accordingly, especially to the 3rd surety’s motion, the trial could not proceed any further.
Justice Nyako subsequently adjourned to November 14, 2018 for continuation of hearing of the matter.
