Kanu’s bail conditions and mixed reactions
The Federal High Court in Abuja that granted the leader of the Indigenous people of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, bail, through its preceding officer Justice Binta Nyako, on Tuesday issued conditions said by public’s to be stringent, unconstitutional, unacceptable and improper in a constitutionally recognized and democratically practiced country like Nigeria.
Not quite some hours ago, Nnamdi Kanu was reported by newsmen to have been granted bail along with his cohorts in Bayelsa state. It is imperative at this point to file up mixed reactions of people over the bailing conditions of Nnamdi Kanu, but first the conditions.
Trial Justice Binta Nyako said her decision to release Kanu on bail was based on health grounds. This means that Kanu is sick and if he had not been ill he wouldn’t have been granted bail by the court.
IPOB members at Federal High Court Abuja. Photo by Gbemiga Olamikan.
Similarly, that Kanu should provide a highly respected and recognized Jewish leader as a surety to deposit N100million. That’s a huge sum of money to provide in an economic recovery country like Nigeria.
In addition to the above it is required that Kanu provides another two sureties of “highly placed person of Igbo extraction such as a Senator”, as well as “a highly respected person who resides and owns landed property in Abuja”. These two mentioned people are equally meant to deposit N100million each. A rhetoric I moan how possible is this possible?
Furthering Kanu’s conditions of bail, Justice Nyako breached his constitutional right to associate with people, thus allows him for a dyadic association (not more than 10 persons). According to Justice Nyako “I must stress it here that the defendant must not attend any rally. He must not be in a crowd exceeding 10 persons.”