Kanu’s Stringent Bail Conditions: Consequences Of Quota System

Kanu’s Stringent Bail Conditions: Consequences Of
Quota System In The Appointment Of Judges In
Nigeria It is incurably defective and socially
disastrous
when a post SSCE student who scores 100 in the
Joint Admission & Matriculation Board exams is
admitted into the university to study a law course,
for instance, with another student who scores 250
in the same exams. The former with lower mark and
lower quotient is allowed admission because
he or she comes from northern part of the country
and benefits from the so called quota system
allocations and considerations; while the latter is
admitted under stringent conditions and marks
requirements because he or she comes from the
knowledgeable southern part of Nigeria.

image

The
consequences of the former on all spheres of
Nigeria’s social development and conducts
including the appointment and promotion of
Judges in the country have remained irremediably
grave till date. The conditions attached to a bail
granted to Citizen
Nnamdi Kanu (Prisoner-of-Conscience) Tuesday,
April 25, 2017 at the Abuja Division of the Federal
High Court are a clear attestation of the referenced
quota system toxemia. The stringent bail conditions
above mentioned are nothing short of quota system
judicial disaster.

This is more so when the
said Judge ought to be learned and
knowledgeable enough to be fully grasped with
the spirit and letters of the law and the Constitution,
having variously served as Attorney General of
Katsina State, wife of Governor of Adamawa State,
Judge of State and Federal High Court; and a
private
legal practitioner for not less than ten years before
her appointment as a High Court Judge.

It is recalled that the said Federal High Court,
presided over by the said Hon Justice Binta Murtala
Nyako has today granted bail to the detained leader
of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB)
with the Yorean or Stone Age conditions. The quota
system judicially disastrous conditions are as
follows: (a) mandatory production of three sureties,
including a “highly respected and recognized
Jewish leader”, (b) mandatory production of a
“highly placed person of Igbo extraction such as a
Senator”, (c) mandatory production of “a highly
respected person who is resident and owns landed
property in Abuja”, (d) each of the three sureties is
to mandatorily deposit N100 million each.

Other stringent conditions imposed on Citizen
Nnamdi Kanu’s bail are barring him from attending
any rally or granting any form of interview and that
Citizen Kanu must not be in a crowd exceeding 10
persons. He is also mandated to sign an
undertaking to avail himself for trial at all times as
well as to mandatorily surrender his Nigerian and
British int’l passports. Citizen Nnamdi Kanu has
since been returned to Kuje Prison pending the
fulfilment of his stringent bail conditions.

Shockingly and surprisingly, other Igbo citizens
standing same pre trial with Citizen Nnamdi Kanu:
Chidiebere Onwudiwe, Benjamin Madubugwu, and
David Nwawuisi were denied bail by the court
which has fixed July 11 and 12 to commence their
trial.

Dicey Implications:
Citizen Nnamdi Kanu’s fundamental human rights
to freedom of thought, conscience and religion
contained in Section 38 of Nigeria’s 1999
Constitution and allied articles in African Rights
Charter of 1981 and UN Covenant on Civil &
Political
Rights of 1976 have been gravely and inexcusably
breached and infringed upon.
By barring him from being found in a crowd not
exceeding 10 persons, Citizen Kanu cannot attend
any religious worship, functions or gathering;
whether organized by Christian or Judaist groups.

It also means that Citizen Kanu must not be found
in the midst of his team of lawyers who are usually
more than 10 in number. That is to say that his
rights and access to legal
defence, freedom of movement, association and
peaceful assembly are gravely denied and infringed
upon. These are in grave contravention of Sections
36 (6)-right to legal defense, 40-freedom of
assembly and association and 41-freedom of
movement of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution.

Other consequences of barring Citizen Nnamdi
Kanu from being found in a crowd not exceeding
10 persons are that: Citizen Kanu cannot visit his
King-father who is a prominent traditional ruler in
one of the communities in Umuahia and has a
retinue of royal cabinet members exceeding 10
persons.

That he cannot visit her queen-mother who has a
retinue of palace maidens and maids exceeding 10
persons; that he cannot visit his in-laws, paternal
and maternal sides; that he cannot visit or see his
siblings; that he cannot attend any function; that he
cannot go to sporting fields for exercise and other
sporting activities; that he cannot travel by air or by
commercial land transport so as to avoid meeting a
crowd peopled by more than 10 persons; that he
cannot greet or be greeted by crowd or a mass of
people; that he cannot receive or hold any meeting
or play host to his comrades-in-aluta; that he
cannot attend his rural or city kindred or clan
meetings; and most importantly,that he can no
longer attend court trial because he will be found in
a crowd exceeding 10 persons.

This is to mention
but a few.
Also on account of barring Citizen Nnamdi Kanu
from granting any form of interview, his scared
constitutional and legal rights to fair hearing and
freedom of expression as contained in Sections 36
and 39 of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution. Arising
Critical Questions For Justice Nyako And
Federal Government:
Why did Justice Binta Nyako insist that Citizen
Nnamdi Kanu must a highly respected Jewish
leader that will deposit N100 million for his bail?

Does it mean that once one put on pre trial is a
Catholic or a Muslim, one is mandatorily required to
provide a Vatican Cardinal or a Saudi Sheik who
must provide a cash of N100 million as bail surety?

How many Muslim citizens standing pre trial in
Nigeria, if any, have been asked to provide a highly
respected Saudi Sheik from Saudi Arabia with N100
million cash deposit as bail bond?
How many Boko Haram or Fulani terror suspects
standing pre trial, if any, have been asked to
provide such persons with such amount of money
as bail bonds?

Why imposing such stringent bail conditions on an
innocent young man who has never levied any
form of armed struggle in his advocacy activities in
Nigeria or any part thereof; leaving out those who
have massacred and continue to massacre
thousands of innocent citizens on daily, if not on
hourly basis in Nigeria or any part thereof? Why did
Justice Binta Murtala Nyako deny other co-
pretrial defendants: Chidiebere Onwudiwe, Ben
Nwawusisi and Dave Madubugwu bail?
We expressly and boldly call on the legal defence
team of Citizen Nnamdi Kanu el al to reject in their
totality the stringent conditions so imposed and
quickly go for their variations or reversal.

Signed:
For: Int’l Society for Civil Liberties & the Rule of
Law
Emeka Umeagbalasi, Board Chairman
Mobile Line: +2348174090052
Obianuju Joy Igboeli, Esq. Head, Civil Liberties &
Rule of Law Program
Chinwe Umeche, Esq.
Head, Democracy & Good Governance Program
Florence C. Akubilo, Esq.

Head, Campaign & Publicity Department
Contact: International Society for Civil Liberties &
Rule of Law
Phone Lines: +2348182411462,
+2349063500218
Email: info@intersociety-ng.org

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Kanu’s Stringent Bail Conditions: Consequences Of Quota System

  1. Emka says:

    All these Big Gramas & in ability to strike accord remains the big factorscreen IPOB keep been enslaved by less less than lesser iq Northerners .Given the OddNess of the bail Conditions, She called Biafrans Nothingness. Mr k.Nnamdi is still in detaining hole.

    Like

Comments are closed.