The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Benjamin Madubugwu

  • IPOB: Court grants bail to Kanu’s co-defendants

    Cautions them against engaging in rallies, press interviews

     

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has granted bail to four men charged with the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) Nnamdi Kanu with the offence of  treasonable felony.

    Those granted bail are IPOB’s National Coordinator, Bright Chimezie; suspected  members of the group, Chidiebere Onwudiwe and Benjamin Madubugwu; and a former Field Maintenance Engineer seconded to the telecommunication company, MTN, David Nwawuisi.

    Justice Binta Nyako, in a ruling on their bail application, agreed to allow them on bail on grounds of ill health and the number of years they had spent in detention awaiting trial.

    The judge said the defendants had spent an average of three years in custody when the maximum penalty for the offences they were charged with, if convicted, ranged from five to seven years.

    Justice Nyako observed that Chimezie had earlier been granted bail by the Federal High Court in Uyo in May 2017 but the Department of State Service which was then holding him in custody refused to release him.

    The judge said Section 163 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 made bail a right of every defendant unless the prosecution was able to prove why the defendant was not entitled to bail.

    She: “Taking all these into consideration consideration, I have not seen any reason why I should not grant bail to the defendants.”

    The judge attached to the bail granted the four defendants conditions similar to the ones she attached to the bail granted Kanu in April last year.

    He restrained them from granting any press interview, participating in any form of rally or found in the gathering of people.

    Read Also: Police return Kanu’s stolen $11,000

    In addition, Justice Nyako ordered them to produce two sureties each, for whom the cash sum of N10m should be deposited in the court’s account.

    The judge equally ordered them to deposit their passports with the court registry and must not travel out the country without the court’s permission.

    She ordered the defendants to report to the Commissioners of Police in their various states of residence every two weeks.

    The judge further ordered Chimezie to report to the Commissioner of Police in Rivers State; Onwudiwe and Nwasuisi to the Commissioner of Police in Enugu State and Madubugwu to the Commissioner of Police in Anambra State.

    The judge said, “Let me warn you. There should be no gather, no welcome oyoyo (a reference to a welcome party).

    “Just take care of your health, spend time with your family. Don’t travel outside the country without the court’s permission. No press interview of any form.”

    Justice Nyako rejected the plea by Chimezie’s lawyer, Ifeanyi Ejiofor, who also stands as Kanu’s lawyer, to substitute the requirement for cash  deposit with the signing of bail bond worth the same amount.

    Ejiofor had expressed  concern that it would be difficult for his client and other defendants to get N20m cash each.

    The judge however modified the condition to  allow the defendants to be released pending when they would get the cash.

    Justice Nyako added that she would impose another condition to guarantee that they would deposit the cash in the court’s account after being released.

    The judge adjourned to November 14 for the continuation of trial.

  • IPOB: Court fixes May 21 to rule on bail application filed by member

    The Federal High Court, Abuja on Friday fixed May 21 to rule on the bail application filed by Bright Chimezie, the first defendant, in the ongoing trial of four members of the Indigenous People of Biafra, (IPOB).

    The trial judge, Justice Binta Nyako, fixed the date after taking arguments from Chimezie’s counsel, Mr Chukwudi Igwe and counsel to the Federal Government, Mr Collins Aromosele.

    Igwe asked the court to grant his client bail on the grounds that he had overstayed in detention without trial, adding that his client had already been granted bail by an Uyo Federal High which the Federal Government disregarded.

    He maintained that his client was eager to see how the prosecution would prove their case against him and to this effect, granting him bail would not jeopardise the trial in anyway.

    He said that his client would not temper with the case and would attend court to defend the charge against him.

    Aromosele opposed the bail application, and urged the court to dismiss it.

    Counsel to the second to fourth defendants, Chidiebere Onwudiwe, Benjamin Madubugwu and David Nwawuisi, also argued the bail applications on behalf of their clients.

    Mr Eric Ifere, counsel to Onwudiwe prayed the court to grant his client bail on the grounds that the constitution provided that accused should be granted bail if trial did not commence within two months.

    “The defendant has been in detention for close to two years and except where Section 162 is applicable, which passes the onus to the prosecution to prove that if granted bail, the defendant will temper with justice.

    “They are also to prove that the defendant will jump bail and not attend court and they can only prove this with evidence placed before the court.”

    Mr P. Ejiofor, counsel to Madubugwu, on his part, prayed the court to grant his client bail on health grounds.

    He further prayed the court to grant his client bail on the grounds that he had stayed long in detention, adding that there was no objection to the application for bail.

    “One of the reasons we want the court to consider is the health of the defendant whose medical records are before the court and medical experts have recommended that he needs further medical care beyond the walls of the prison.

    “Also, the time he has spent in detention is almost equal to the amount of time stipulated as punishment for one convicted of the crime he is charged for.”

    The prosecuting counsel, however, asked the court for time to enable him respond to the bail application of the second to fourth defendants.

    The defence team had also hinted the court that they had an application challenging the competence of the charges against the defendants.

    Justice Nyako adjourned the matter until May 21 to rule on the bail application of Chimezie and to allow the prosecution respond to applications of the second to fourth defendants.

    The Federal Government on March 20, re-arraigned Chimezie, Onwudiwe, Madubugwu and Nwawuisi, on an amended three-count charge.

    Their re-arraignment was sequel to the severance of their trial from that of Nnamdi Kanu, whose whereabouts had been unknown since September, 2017.

    They are standing trial for charges bordering on conspiracy to commit treasonable felony, improper importation of goods and illegal possession of firearms.

  • Absence of judge stalls Kanu ’s trial

    Absence of judge stalls Kanu ’s trial

    The trial of leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra ( IPOB ), Nnamdi Kanu was stalled on Monday in Federal High Court, Abuja, due to the absence of the judge.

    The official of the court informed parties that the trial judge, Justice Binta Nyanko, had gone to attend Judges’ Conference within the city.

    Nyanko had ordered Sen. Enyinnaya Abaribe, who stood surety for Kanu to appear in court on Nov. 20 to account for his whereabouts.

    The order was predicated on report from Kanu’s Counsel, Mr Ifeanyi Ejiofor, who claimed on Oct. 18 that his client could not be found.

    Abaribe, who was in court, however, told journalists that the military unsettled Kanu, adding that his whereabouts was not known to him either.

    The lawmaker said it was on the basis of that uncertainty that he filed an application to withdraw his suretiship.

    Also ordered to account for Kanu’s whereabouts were Tochukwu Uchendu and Jewish Chief High Priest Immanuel-El Shalom Oka-Ben Madu.

    Mr Shuaibu  Labaran, the Prosecuting Counsel had through an application demanded that Kanu’s sureties be made to produce him to allow the trial to continue.

    Kanu is standing trial on treasonable charges along with Chidiebere Onwudiwe, Benjamin Madubugwu and David Nwawuis.

    Read Also:  IPOB leader Kanu whereabouts unknown as trial resumes today

     

  • IPOB condemn continuous detention of five members

    IPOB condemn continuous detention of five members

    The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has condemned the continued detention of five of its members and many others being detained at various prisons across the country for no justifiable reason.

    The group gave the names of those who are still in detention to include, Chidiebere Onwudiwe, Benjamin Madubugwu, David Nwawuisi, Bright Chimezie, George Onyeibe and other members, “Who are being detained in different Nigeria prisons in  Ugwuocha Rivers state, Delta State, Anambra State, Akwa Ibom State, Abia State and Abuja”.

    The condemnation was contained in statement signed by the media and publicity secretary of IPOB, Emma Powerful which blamed the judicial commission and Attorney General of the Federation for allowing the courts to continue mess the judicial system in Nigeria.

    The statement reads, “The Attorney General of the Federation should have dropped all the concocted and fabricated charges preferred against our leader Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and others who are still detained in prison to save their image in the face of the international community”.

    “It is very appalling that a well-trained judge who passed through so many seminars before being elevated to the position of a Chief judge in a Federal High court can allowed herself and the court to be used to barre Mazi Nnamdi Kanu from exercising his fundamental human rights”.

    “However, the continued detention of those mentioned above in different prisons and DSS secret cells across the country remained the weakness on the side of judicial commission and Attorney General of Federation”.

    “It is very abnormal that the judicial commission and judiciary in Nigeria that are supposed to be the last hope for common man would turned themselves to be problem for the masses they are supposed to protect”.

    “With the judgement on 25th April 2017 banning our leader from speaking to the press and not to stay with more than 10 persons proves to the entire world that the judiciary in Nigeria is where truth can never prevail”.

    “According to the information reaching us indicates that our members detained in different prisons and secret cells across the country are no more save as most of them have fallen sick because of lack of proper medical attention”.

    “Especially those being detained in Kuje prison, we are calling for their immediate released to enable them take proper medical treatment because we cannot take it easy with anybody if anything should happen to any of our members in detention anywhere in the country”.

    “We are calling on men and women of good conscience across the globe, Amnesty International and relevant human rights organizations to prevail on the Attorney General of the Federation and the judicial commission to drop the fabricated charges preferred against our leader Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and others detained illegally alongside him in Kuje Prison because they committed no offense against anybody or Nigeria state”.

    “IPOB remained a peaceful and nonviolent organization in history of freedom fighting across the globe and  we will continue to follow the lay down rules provided by the United Nations charter for the rights of the indigenous people”.

    The Biafra liberation movement is sacrosanct and waxing stronger both home and  in diaspora and will not go back in the quest for the restoration of Biafra, anybody who is thinking to sabotage the struggle is doing that to his or her own detriment”.

    “We believe that the conditional and harsh bail attached to our leader with which he was released was to cage him and to dampened the high spirits of IPOB family members worldwide which has failed”.

    “The injustice against the people of Biafra in Nigeria are numerous to mentioned, IPOB under the leadership of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu have decided to fight it to a standstill”.

    “Of course many are aware that this is a project of God Almighty which IPOB embarked upon to liberate our people from the shackles of bondage we find ourselves in the hands of those who are determined to ruin us with the help of the British Government no matter the price we might pay in the cause of pursuing this freedom, we will not backpedal”.

    “We are advising the entire Biafrans both home and abroad to observe the remembrance day celebration of our fallen heroes and heroines who paid the ultimate sacrifice for our people to live today in Nigeria”.

    The 30th of May this year sit at home and remembrance day celebration will be a remarkable event in the history of Biafra as we must always remember those who laid down their lives so that we may live”.

    “Therefore, there will be no movement of any kind because the international community and friends of Biafra have delegated some foreign observers to monitor the event on that fateful day, the delegates will be in Biafraland with their media team to ascertain if the people of Biafra are ready for the upcoming referendum for Biafra sovereignty”.

     

  • IPOB: Court reserves ruling on review to April 25

    The Federal High Court, Abuja, on Thursday reserved ruling on whether or not it will reverse its order on witness protection in the ongoing trial of IPOB leader, Nnamdi Kanu to April 25.

    Justice Binta Nyako, on March 27, insisted that she would not review her judgment on the issue of protecting the identity of the witnesses as long they were security operatives.

    “I will not vary my order on protection of security operatives; It is either they wear a mask or are behind a screen.

    “Security operatives need to be protected not because of this case but because of the future, and so as long as the witnesses are security personnel, they will be taken behind a screen,” Nyako said.

    But counsel to the defendants maintained that since some of the charges against the defendants had been struck out, there was need for the order to be reviewed to reflect the current charges.

    At the resumed hearing on Thursday, the prosecuting counsel, Mr Shuaibu Labaran, told the court that the matter was slated for argument on the application to review the court’s decision on witness protection.

    Counsel to Kanu, Mr Ifeanyi Ejiofor told the court that he had filed an application asking the court to review its stand on protecting the identity of witnesses in the case.

    Ejiofor said that part of the reason he filed the application was on the grounds that six out of the initial 11-count charge against the defendant were struck out.

    He prayed the court to vacate the order it made allowing the prosecution witnesses to give evidence behind a shield and to instead order the witnesses to testify in an open court.

    Mr E.I Eseme, counsel to the third defendant, Benjamin Madubugwu, in his argument, also prayed the court for the same relief, adding that his application was brought pursuant to Section 6(6) of the 1999 Constitution.

    He urged the court to review the order it made on Dec. 13, 2016, to shield witnesses, set aside the order and direct that all witnesses should testify in public.

    Eseme added that his client was not standing trial for any of the offences that required witness protection.

    According to him, Section 36(4) of the 1999 Constitution provides that it is mandatory for proceedings in all criminal trials to be public.

    He noted that there was no counter- affidavit from the prosecution, adding that it could only mean that the facts were not contradicted and so they were not opposing the application.

    Mr Chukwuma Ozougwu, counsel to the fourth defendant, David Nwawuisi, also towed the same line of argument and urged the court to grant the application in favour of his client.

    Labaran, in his reply, prayed the court to dismiss the three applications on the grounds that they were frivolous and a deliberate attempt to delay the prosecution of the case.

    He told the court that the claim by the defence counsel that since he did not file a counter affidavit, the court should assume that he was in support of the application should be discountenanced.

    According to him, if the defendants have a problem with the ruling of the court that witnesses should be protected, they should appeal the decision.

    He added that moreover, it was only journalists and the general public that would not see the witnesses but only hear them as all the defendants, the lawyers and the judge would see the witnesses.

    He said the order was granted based on the discretionary powers given to the judge by Section 232 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA).

    Justice Nyako adjourned the matter until April 25 to rule on both the application to review the witness protection order and bail.

     

  • Court strikes out six charges against Kanu, others

    Court strikes out six charges against Kanu, others

    Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court, Abuja, on Wednesday struck out six out of the 11 charges preferred against the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu and three others.

    The other defendants are – David Nwawuisi, Benjamin Madubugwu and Chidiebere Onwudiwe.

    Nyako held that the six charges were not supported by proof of evidence by the prosecution, but sustained the other five charges.

    She said there was no evidence before the court to prove that IPOB, which was allegedly managed by the defendants, was an unlawful society.

    The judge sustained charges 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8, which all the defendants entered a fresh not guilty plea.

    The sustained charges bordered on conspiracy, treasonable felony, publication of defamatory matter and Kanu’s alleged importation of goods contrary to Section 47(2) (a) of the Customs and Excise Management Act, Cap C45, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria.

    In count three of the remaining charges, the Federal Government alleged that Kanu had in a broadcast he made in London on April 28, 2015, through Radio Biafra, disparaged President Muhammadu Buhari.

    He referred to Buhari as a “pedophile, a terrorist, an idiot and an embodiment of evil” in the broadcast.

    The judge adjourned the matter till March 20 and 21 to commence trial of the defendants.

    NAN

     

  • Biafra: Release Nnamdi Kanu now – Utomi, Soludo

    Biafra: Release Nnamdi Kanu now – Utomi, Soludo

    Former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, Professor Chukwuma Soludo, and President of the Lagos Business School, Professor Pat Utomi, on Tuesday, demanded the immediate release of the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu.

    The Professors made this known at a media briefing in Abuja under the aegis of the Nzuko Umunna, a group of Igbo professionals.

    Similarly, they condemned the alleged killing of IPOB members in the south-east and urged states where the alleged killings took place to set up a panel of inquiry in their various states.

    Recall that the pro-Biafra leader was arrested on October 14, 2015, in Lagos and has been held in prison since then, despite various court orders that ruled for his release.

    The call for his release followed a series of protests, including that of members of the IPOB in Southeast Nigeria during the inauguration of the President of the United States of America, Donald Trump.

    However, in January 2016 ruling, Justice John Tsoho of the Federal High Court in Abuja had declined to release the detainee on bail.

    The court also denied bail to two other pro-Biafra agitators, Benjamin Madubugwu and David Nwawuisi, who are facing trial with Kanu.

    The All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) had also called for his release, based on the court rulings which granted him bail on three occasions.

    The National Chairman of APGA, Mr Victor Oye, asked the government to obey the rule of law in the prosecution of the case.

  • Court rules on Kanu’s motion February 10

    Court rules on Kanu’s motion February 10

    A Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday fixed February 10 for ruling on an application filed by pro- Biafra agitator, Nnamdi Kanu, seeking to quash the charges against him.

    Justice Binta Nyako chose the date after listening to arguments for and against the motion by lawyers to Kanu and the prosecution.

    Kanu, who is the National Coordinator of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) and three of his associates –  Chidiebere Onwudiwe, Benjamin Madubugwu and David Nwawuisi – are standing trial on an 11-count charge.

    They are charged with managing unlawful organisation, possession of firearms, felony, unlawful importation and terrorism.

    Arguing the application on Thursday, Kanu’s lawyer, Ifeanyi Ejiofor, asked the court to quash the charges which are specifically directed against his client.

    He said: “The six counts preferred against the first defendant/applicant (Kanu) as shown in counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in the substantive charge, and the proof of evidence attached thereto, have not disclosed any prima facie case against the first defendant/applicant, such as to warrant setting the substantive charge down for trial against the first defendant/applicant.”

    Ejiofor said the counts were “smokescreen charges, basically concocted to ensure that the first defendant/applicant is perpetually held in custody.”

  • Biafra: Court to decide Kanu, others’ bail, Dec 1

    Biafra: Court to decide Kanu, others’ bail, Dec 1

    Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court, Abuja has scheduled ruling for December 1 in the bail applications by leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, and three others.

    Others are Chidiebere Onwudiwe, Benjamin Madubugwu and David Nwawuisi.

    They were re-arraigned on November 8 before Justice Nyako on an 11-count amended charge. Justice Nyako is the third judge before who they are being arraigned, the other two having withdrawn following allegations by Kanu that they were bias.

    They are charged with treasonable felony, managing an unlawful society, publication of defamatory matter, illegal possession of firearms and improper importation of goods.

    Onwudiwe is charged alone, in one of the counts, with terrorism.

    Their alleged offences are in relation to the defendants’ alleged broadcasts on Radio Biafra and agitation for the creation of Biafra Republic from states in the South-East and South-South zones and other communities in Kogi and Benue states.

    Thursday, defence lawyers, including Ifeanyi Ejiofor (for Kanu); I. Adoga (for Onwudiwe);  E. I Efeme (for Madubugwu) and Maxwell Okpara (for Nwaiwusi) argued their separate bail applications.

    They urged the court to dismiss the counter-affidavit filed in opposition to their clients’ applications.

    The defence lawyers argued that the prosecution’s claim, to the effect that the defendants will constitute a threat to national security if released on bail pending trial, was unsustainable.

    Efeme argued: “The prosecution has the duties to give the particulars of how the defendants would constitute national security. These documents (provided by the prosecution) do not show such.

    “It is the duty of the prosecution to show how the third defendant and the rest of the defendants should not enjoy bail, and we are saying they have not,” he said.

    Adoge complained that his client, Onwudiwe was yet to be transferred to prison from the custody of the Department of State Service, despite the court’s order to that effect.

    He argued that the charge against his client was a mere “smokescreen”.

    “The Supreme Court has said when the charge is found to be a smokescreen, the court is bound to grant bail to the defendant,” he said.

    Okpara contended that the counter-affidavit filed by the prosecution in opposition to his client’s bail application was “fundamentally defective” and should be struck out.

    He urged the court to grant bail to his client on basis of the alleged defects in the bail application, a situation which he said implied that the application was not opposed.

    He also argued that contrary to the contention of the prosecution, the defendants would only constitute national security threat if they continued on remand, but that “there will be peace if they are released”.

    On his part, lead prosecution lawyer, Magaji Labaran argued his counter-affidavits and urged the court to dismiss the bail applications and order accelerated hearing in the case.

    He cautioned the court against granting bail to the defendants, particularly Onwudiwe, who is charged with terrorism.

    Labaran informed the court about an application he filed seeking protection for prosecution’s witnesses.

    Lawyers to the defendants confirmed being served with the applicant, but sought time to enable them respond.

    Justice Nyako consiquently adjourned to December 1 for ruling.

  • BREAKING: Biafra: Judge backs out of Kanu’s case

    BREAKING: Biafra: Judge backs out of Kanu’s case

    The Judge at the Federal High Court in Abuja has exempted himself from hearing the case against the embattled leader of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mr. Nnamdi Kanu.

    The Judge, Justice Ahmed Mohammed announced the decision on Wednesday in Abuja, following the fresh six-count charges filled by the Federal Government of Nigeria.

    Justice Mohammed, who decided to step down on the case Kanu’s objection to the case, said that it was needless, as the federal government had repeatedly disobeyed previous court rulings.

    It would be recalled that Kanu was charged before the Federal High Court, Abuja alongside two others, Benjamin Madubugwu and David Nwawuisi in a fresh six-count charge of treason and managing the affairs of ‘an unlawful society.’

    The IPOB leader, who was arraigned before Justice Mohammed, told the court on Wednesday before commencement of the prosecution’s plea that he preferred being held in detention, than subjecting himself to a trial, which outcome will not be respected.

    He said his previous trials had various outcomes that were abused or neglected by the office of the State Security Service (SSS).

    The counsel to the prosecution, who is also the Federal Director of Prosecution, office of the Attorney General, Mohamed Diri, told the court that based on section 396 (2) of the constitution, the defendant had no right to object to being tried by the court until after the plea is heard.

    Meanwhile, Justice Mohammed who said he was opting out of the case also countered the prosecution counsels, saying that Mr. Kanu had the right to reject the trial, “after all justice is rooted on confidence,” he said.

    “If any of the parties has no confidence in the court, he has the right to say so”, Mr. Mohammed ruled, noting that the prosecution would have done the same thing if they were in Kanu’s shoes.

    “Assuming it was the prosecution, if they had no confidence in the court of jurisdiction; would they not have done so?

    “I hereby remit the case file to the honourable chief judge of this court to reassign it,” the judge summed.