IPOB Leader, Nnamdi Kanu Files Appeal For Bail Restoration

Nnamdi Kanu, the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has filed a brief at the Court of Appeal seeking the restoration of his bail revoked by the Federal High Court in Abuja.

Kanu’s legal team, led by Special Counsel Barrister Aloy Ejimakor, contends that the trial court erroneously revoked his bail on the Nigerian government’s claim that he had jumped bail. Despite evidence and a Supreme Court ruling supporting his case, the trial court refused to reinstate his bail or even order home detention.

Kanu’s brief details the events leading to his current detention. While on bail and complying with its terms in his hometown of Afiaraukwu Ibeku, Abia State, the Nigerian government allegedly attempted to assassinate him through a military operation named “Operation Python Dance.” Though Kanu escaped, the operation resulted in casualties, and he was later awarded one billion naira in damages.

Following his escape, the Nigerian government sought the revocation of his bail, claiming he had jumped bail. This order was granted on March 28, 2019. In June 2021, Kanu was abducted and extradited from Kenya to Nigeria, leading to an amended charge against him, including terrorism-related offenses.

Kanu’s legal team argues that the Supreme Court found his rendition unlawful and that the bail revocation was erroneous, casting doubt on the trial court’s impartiality. They assert that the Supreme Court’s findings should bind the trial court, preventing it from maintaining the previous bail-jumping allegation.

The appeal brief questions the trial court’s refusal to restore Kanu’s bail and its decision to detain him in the Department of State Security facility instead of an alternative location. It also challenges the trial court’s stance that Kanu’s sureties had forfeited their bonds and were discharged, noting that the Supreme Court had acknowledged the deception involved in the bail revocation.

Kanu’s legal team has requested the Court of Appeal to determine whether the trial court’s decisions were justified given the Supreme Court’s findings and the affidavit evidence presented.