₦airaland Forum

CALL TO ARREST KANU'S LAWYER
I am not sure that those calling for the arrest of Nnamdi Kanu's lawyer are real lawyers per se.
1. Does Nigerian law works retroactively. In every sane world, laws are not meant to operate retroactively. Even though, IPO is viral in other countries where they are still recognized, have the so called lawyers seen or heard Kanu propagating the cause of IPOB after the proscription
2. Is there any law(s) in Nigeria prohibiting Kanu's lawyer from defending him. In fact even under the Nigerian laws, courts are enjoined to provide lawyers for criminals who cannot afford same.
3. Does Rules of Professional Conduct preclude Kanu's lawyer from defending him, the answer is No. The law is trite in all these.
4 The question now is under what laws are the so called lawyers calling for Kanu's lawyer arrest ; misplaced priority
5. I am coming back when you supply the laws

THE LEGALITY AND/OR OTHERWISE OF SURETIES TO THE LEADER OF IPOB (NNAMDI KANU) TO SHOW CAUSE:
It can be a horrendous nightmare for a Surety when an accused person bailed out by him (by execution of a bail bond) in a criminal proceeding, absconds.
*The Consequences to Surety when the Accused Absconds
When an accused person on bail fails to attend Court as required, the following consequences follow:
1. The DPP would apply to the Court to issue a warrant of arrest against the accused.
2. The surety would then be asked to show cause why the surety bond he had executed for the appearance of the accused should not be forfeited.
3. The Court will then adjourn the matter for further mention on another date for the Surety to show cause.
4. At the show cause mention, if no cause is shown, the Surety will be provided an opportunity to make a plea in mitigation as to why not all of the bail sum should be forfeited.
5. At the same mention date, the warrant of arrest would also be reviewed.
***The Legal Nature of a Bail Bond***
As to the nature of the obligations entered into by a Surety when a bail bond is executed
The extent of the surety’s obligation under the bond is determined by the terms of the bond. A surety bond is no different from a guarantee given in a civil contract. Any breach of the conditions of the bond gives rise to a forfeiture and the amount forfeited is in the nature of a civil debt. Under … the Criminal Procedure Acts, this debt is enforceable by the Court by issuing a warrant for the attachment and sale of the property belonging to that person but this remedy does not prevent the Government from enforcing the bond under the Government Proceedings Act… Therefore ordinary principles of construction apply in the interpretation of the terms of the bond to determine the extent of the surety’s obligation thereunder.

******Show Cause***
If the Surety appears in Court on the date of the mention when the accused’s attendance was required (but on which date the latter did not attend but absconded), the Surety would be informed by the Court that he has an opportunity to show cause why the bail sum should not be paid and a “show cause” proceeding for that purpose would be fixed at the next mention date.
If the Surety too does not attend Court on the mention date, a “Notice to Show Cause” will be sent to the address of the Surety to be present at the “show cause” proceeding mention date.
At the mention to show cause proceeding (commonly known as “Surety to Show Cause”),in theory, it is possible, in exceptional circumstances, to successfully show cause why the bail sum should not be forfeited. For example, where: (i) a medical certificate is produced stating that the accused was medically unfit to attend Court on the relevant date and time; or (ii) the accused is in lawful custody, ie arrested and in the custody of the police or admitted to a Drug Rehabilitation Centre or remanded or serving sentence in a prison.
In all of these situations, the fact that the accused is (or would be) found clearly plays a crucial part. Needless to say, if the accused has not been found on the show cause mention date, it is unlikely that the show cause point would even arise.
Of course, if the Surety connived at the disappearance of the accused or aided it or abetted it, or was wanting in due diligence to secure his appearance, he will have no chance of showing cause.
In practice, in most cases, however, any attempt at showing cause by the surety would almost invariably fail.
IN THE CASE OF NNAMDI KANU:
1.NNAMDI KANU'S bail is still running when the army invaded his house.
2.Nnamdi Kanu's perceived bail violation has not been decided upon by the court that granted same.
3.Since his house invasion by the military, he has been left incommunicado
4.No one is aware of his whereabouts since the invasion.
5.His organization has been proscribed by the govt and the legal implication is that no one should associate with him even his sureties..
SUMMATION
The notion that his sureties will forfeit the bonds is neither here nor there.
The sureties don’t even have a heavy burden to show court as the reason why KANU may not be in court is in the public domain and any juristic conscience will decide otherwise.
#MYHUMBLESUBMISSION#@IKERIOKEYJUSTICE#