(Updated) Abaribe ordered to Produce Kanu by Abuja high court

Ebun Francis || The Abuja High Court on Tuesday ordered Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe to produce Nnamdi Kanu or Forfeit the N100m he deposited as surety for the release on bail of the IPOB leader.

Abaribe had earlier through his lawyer, Ogechi Ogbonna argued for the refund of the surety sum because Kanu’s absence was the fault of the Nigeria Army who invaded his home last month.

But the Judge while responding to Ogbonna’s argument said Abaribe has only three options-

The first option was for Abaribe to produce the defendant in court and then apply to be discharged as a surety.
The second option was for Abaribe to be ready to forfeit his N100m bail bond while the third option ‎was to ask to be given time to produce the defendant.
The Senator’s counsel informed the Judge that “he (Abaribe) is not in a position to do any of these.”
When the judge refused to budge on any of the options, Abaribe’s counsel asked that his client be given time to produce the on the run IPOB leader.

Ebun Francis || The absence of the self styled IPOB leader did not, however, derail the court proceedings as one of the people who signed Kanu’s bail bond moved to opt out of the bond.

See also  SSS to arraign El-Rufai on Wednesday for cybercrime, national security breach

In a motion by Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe, filed by his lawyer, the PDP Senator from Abia State is asking the court to refund the N100 million bond earlier agreed to be given as part of Mr. Kanu’s bail condition.

Abaribe cited the invasion of Kanu’s home in September by the Nigeria Army which lead to the disappearance of the IPOB leader.

Abaribe said, “Since the stated visit of the Nigerian Army to the residence of the first defendant from September 11, 2017, the second respondent in this suit (Mr. Kanu) has not been seen in public, neither has he been reported as making any statement on any issue.”

“The activities of the Nigerian Army as affecting the second defendant are matters of state secret incapable of being unravelled by the applicant, which activities have put the second defendant out of the reach of the applicant, such that the applicant cannot reasonably be expected to produce the second defendant before this court.“Since September 20, the reports have been that the federal government has proscribed IPOB, and declared it a terrorist organization.

See also  US Supreme Court strikes down Trump's tariffs

“The applicant lacks capacity to produce the person stated by the first respondent (government) as a terrorist or a person who is of interest to the applicant.”

More to follow…