He stated that the publications in the media, purporting that - at the last hearing of his case on April 17, 2024 - Kanu gave conditions for his trial were misleading regardless of how well-intentioned.
Aloy Ejimakor, lead counsel for the detained Biafra successionist and leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has denied reports that his client gave conditions for his trial.
Ejimakor made the clarification in a corrigendum issued on Friday morning which was addressed to all media houses and platforms.
He stated that the publications in the media, purporting that - at the last hearing of his case on April 17, 2024 - Kanu gave conditions for his trial were misleading regardless of how well-intentioned.
Giving what he described as the true state of affairs, Kanu's counsel stated: "At the last hearing on 17th April 2024, the main issue before the Court was our application to have Kanu’s bail reinstated, in line with the clear and unequivocal pronouncement of the Supreme Court in its judgment of 15th December, 2023.
"The kernel of our argument for bail restoration pivots on the determination made by the Supreme Court to the effect that Kanu’s bail was revoked in error, based on the misrepresentation or false premise that he had jumped bail, of which the Supreme Court made a finding that he did not."
He cited some parts of what the Supreme Court stated in its judgement on pages 10-13, which absorbed his client of the purported jumping of bail.
He quoted the judgement of the Supreme Court: “The respondent was on bail and therefore in custody of the law when his home was illegally invaded by heavily armed military officers of the appellant causing him to flee from his home and the country to secure his life. In the face of such an attack, it was responsible for him to flee to secure his life and physical well-being. That is what any normal and reasonable human being would do in that circumstance to preserve his life and physical well-being. It is glaring that the consequences of that attack were intended or foreseeable. This is not arguable.
"The appellant’s officials knew that their invasion of the respondent’s home caused him to run away to secure his life and physical well-being. Yet during proceedings in the pending criminal case against him, they applied that his bail be revoked, that a warrant for his arrest be issued and his sureties forfeit their respective bail bond and that his trial in his absence be ordered because he had jumped bail and is not in court to stand his trial.
"But they knew that their illegal actions made it impossible for the respondent to be in court for his trial. In a situation such as this one, where the prosecution has taken extrajudicial actions against the defendant in a pending criminal case brought by it and made it impossible for the defendant who is on bail to be in court for his or her trial, it is wrong to treat such a defendant as having jumped bail in the sense that he is running from prosecution or running to avoid prosecution in the pending criminal case in respect of which he was granted bail.
"The respondent did not intentionally and knowingly fail to appear in court. It was therefore wrong and malicious for the appellant that had cause the respondent to flee from his home and country to secure his life and that had therefore caused his unavoidable absence from court, to inform and thereby deceived the trial court that the respondent had jumped bail."
"On the basis of this deception, that the appellant applied to the trial court for an order revoking the respondent’s bail, forfeiting the amount securing the bail bond of his sureties and an order issuing a bench warrant for his arrest.
“It is glaring from the record of the proceedings in the trial court that it granted the said orders prayed for by the appellant with knowledge of the fact that the respondent’s absence from court was caused by the invasion of his home by amy officers of the appellant," he said.