(5 Minute Read)

INTRODUCTION
The right of bail is a direct offshoot of the constitutional right to liberty guaranteed under Section 35 (1) and the right to freedom of movement under Section 38 of the Constitution.

Thus, the power of a court to grant bail is not inherent as such. It has constitutional as well as statutory foundation. Thus, in Ikotun v. FRN & Anor (2015) LPELR -24684 (CA) the Court per Nimpar J.C.A said:
"Bail pending trial generally is of right to a person accused of committing a crime. This is informed by the presumption of innocence that the accused enjoys under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria."


BAIL CONDITION OF NNAMDI KANU

The Federal High Court in Abuja has granted bail to the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu, who is facing charges bordering on treasonable felony.

Justice Binta Nyako said her decision to release Kanu on bail was based on health grounds.
The court held that Kanu must produce three sureties, including a “highly respected and recognised jewish leader”.

According to the court, aside a jewish leader, Kanu must also produce a “highly placed person of Igbo extraction such as a Senator”, as well as “a highly respected person who is resident and owns landed property in Abuja”.
Each of the sureties are to deposit N100million each.
As part of his conditions for bail, Kanu, was expressly barred from attending any rally or granting any form of interview.
“I must stress it here that the defendant must not attend any rally. He must not be in a crowd exceeding 10 persons”, the Judge warned.

BAIL CONDITIONS VIS A VIS NATIONAL SECURITY

Whether or not the bail conditions are onerous

There is no doubt that bail is at discretion of the court, it must be stated clearly that in exercising such discretion there must be due regards to the circumstances of the case and shall not be excessive- See 165 (1) ACJA . Where the conditions for bail imposed on an accused by the court are onerous to the extreme ,it is as good as denying him bail- In Eyu v.State (1988) 2 NWLR (PT.78) 602. It is submitted that this conditions of bail imposed on leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu, is onerous and stringent is as good as denying him bail . I further state that such condition could be varied upon application to the court of appeal to vary the bail conditions.


Whether or not national right supercede individual right

Considering the offence the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu, he is charged with,(treason) which is a serious infraction of the law, that put the sovereignty of the nation under serious threat. When national security is threatened or there is real likelihood of its being threatened, individual right (Nnamdi Kanu in dis case) takes second place. The existence of Nigeria as a united, indivisible sovereign nation is certainly greater than any citizen's right. The court interpreted section................To Read More Visit www.legalify.ng



Guest Post By Anthony Ikubuwaje Esq.

Treason is different from TREASONABLE FELONY. Which nnamdi is charged with.
Go do more research

Green white green

Good write up but disagree with weird bail conditions. Him talking not public danger. Only an idiot would talk about on going case spilling details anyway. They are affaid of more agitations.