Too stringent for comfort
The bail conditions granted the self-proclaimed leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, was like giving a thirsty man vinegar to quench his thirst. Justice Binta Nyako, of the Federal High Court, Abuja, showed magnanimity in changing her earlier position not to grant Kanu, accused of treason, bail. By the judge’s account, Kanu has continually exhibited traces of ill health, every time he appeared in court, a position deposed to in the supporting affidavit for the bail application.
According to Justice Nyako: “over time that the first defendant has appeared in court, the first defendant may be having some health issues as he always sits down and sweats profusely.” She held further: “I am of the opinion that the first defendant needs better health attention than the prison services is able to provide”. As a show of her magnanimity, she exercised her discretion in favour of granting bail to Kanu, who is the first accused person, while refusing bail to the other three accused persons.
In exercising her discretionary power of setting the bail conditions, Justice Nyako set excessively stringent conditions. The judge had asked the accused to tell the court his religion, to which he replied, Judaism. On that premise, the court held that of the three sureties, one must be “a highly respected and recognised Jewish leader.” The judge also directed that Kanu must not grant interviews, or be in a crowd of more than 10 persons. There is also the report in some media that the three sureties are to deposit N100 million each, instead of a mere surety in like sum.
While there was jubilation among some pro-Biafra agitators, the father of the accused, has expressed reservation about the bail condition. Eze Israel Kanu, the traditional ruler of Afaraukwu Ineku Umuahia, asked rhetorically: “why ask him to produce a Jewish leader as surety? Why demand a senator or Igbo leader who will deposit N100 million?” The king went ahead to answer the queries, for he retorted: “It is possible that they are looking for an opportunity to keep him in detention.” He then implored: “It is up to the world to look at the bail conditions and see if they are justifiable…”
For us, the worry should be whether the judge went overboard in setting these stringent conditions. After all, the essence of a bail is to secure the attendance of an accused before the court to face trial whenever the matter is called. For instance, why should the court opt to gag the accused and restrain him from being in a crowd of more than 10 persons? While on bail, the laws of the land apply to the accused and where he breaches any, the law will take its course, as the court lacks the ability to monitor the conduct of the accused.
Again, why engage in a religious excursion in setting the bail condition for the accused person? If we may ask, why should a Nigerian, standing trial for an infraction of a Nigerian law, seek for “a highly respected and recognised Jewish leader;” to gain bail from a Nigerian court? To put a stamp of jocularity to what ordinarily should be an exercise of judicial discretion, the judge said of the prescribed Jewish surety: “I must be able to know him. Thank God I have been taught how to use goggle.”
While Nnamdi Kanu, Benjamin Madubugwu, Chidiebere Onwudiwe and David Nwawuishi have been charged for serious crime of alleged treason, if the judge exercises the discretion to grant bail, then it should be merely to secure the attendance of the accused.
