IPOB Trial: Presiding judge breaks down, not stable health wise; adjourns case till October 31

• As IPOB lawyer faults prosecution for setback in the trial

June 18, 2019

By Chikwas Onu Ikpe
For Biafra Writers

In the ongoing trial of the leader of the Indigenous People Of Biafra, IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu, and his co-defendants, the trial Justice Binta Nyako (Mrs) of the Federal High Court Abuja delayed hearing till October 31, 2019, following her inability to preside the case and/or indisposed health status.

Owing to the information made available at the court, the judge stressed on her ailing (sick) condition as being an impediment towards today's proceedings.

Recall that on the last adjourned date, the court had slated today (Tuesday) to progress the suit filed against the IPOB's leader, Nnamdi Kanu, in his absence; and severally, the other four other defendants.

Nevertheless, the lead counsel to the defendants, Ifeanyi Ejiofor, reacting to the development, confirmed the sickly condition of the judge, saying that she is obviously, seriously ‘down,’ and indisposed; and could not entertain any matter on her desk.

Reacting to the advancement of the case, Ejiofor said that his clients are always ready, but the prosecution.

According to him, “The federal government of Nigeria is not ready to prosecute this matter because there is nothing before the court in the first place. They cannot prosecute the case in a vacuum.

“As fundamental as our application is, urging the court to vacate the bench warrant issued against our client, the state would have countered it if they had any matter to present, but they did not file any counter affidavit to that effect. That will show you they are not serious.

“We have promptly addressed the court via applications, with furnished facts lying on documents that are very overwhelming, convincing the court to vacate that (bench warrant) order because we are talking about what led to the inability of our client [Nnamdi Kanu] to present himself in court for trial. The fact is in public domain, and the world is aware.

“We have supplied the court with shreds of evidence of what transpired in his house on September 14, 2017, how his house was invaded by the military, and also how he was able to get to where he is today.”

Also, the defence counsel shedded light on the application seeking the adoption of written addresses bothering the ‘trial within trial’ of the other (quartet) defendants.

“Most importantly,” Ejiofor pointed out a pending application challenging the qualification of the charges, outrightly. Same, he said, “is overripe for hearing.” He, therefore, insisted that on the next adjourned date, the court shall foremost hear the pending application prior to the suit.

Like us on facebook.com/biafrawriterspress

Contact us: [email protected]

Twitter:  @BiafraWriters

Publisher: Charles Opanwa

Biafra: Kanu’s Bail Revocation; A Big Threat To Our Existence

April 5, 2019 | The Biafra Times

By Godwin J. Chinedu

Permit me at the outset to thank her [Dis -Honorable], Justice Mrs. Binta Nyako for having taken the initiative of such a ridiculous and pathetic path of judication; revoking the bail granted to the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra Mazi Nnamdi Kanu in 2017.

It would be justifiable to state herein that the Nigerian Army acted on Justice Mrs. Binta Nyako secret ploy with tyrant Mohammadu Buhari's security agents of the Nigerian government to assassinate Mazi Nnamdi Kanu; to her surprise Nnamdi Kanu survived the onslaught and invasion on him by tyrant Mohammadu Buhari, Tukur Yusuf Buratai and Mrs. Binta Nyako secret plans hence she ordered for his rearrest.

Biafra Reporters warmly thanked the Nigerian Judiciary Council for allowing a nonentity like Mrs. Binta Nyako for having bastardized and dragged down the once respected hope of the commoner in the society; Mrs. Binta Nyako gave the odious order for Mazi Nnamdi Kanu's apprehension during her courtroom session, she stated that her reasons for the order she gave is because of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu's continuous absent from being tried.

Permit the colonist of this essay to notify the World that Justice Mrs. Binta Nyako being the presiding Judge over this case has countless times refused the hearing cum investigation as to what led to he -Mazi Nnamdi Kanu sudden disappearance, also recall that within 10th - 14th day of September 2017, that the Nigerian murderous Armed Forces, forcefully invaded the home of the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra - Nnamdi Kanu- all in a bid to assassinate him; in the process of that ugly event led to the untimely deaths of 28 innocent Biafrans. These people were murdered in a gruesome manner, cold-blooded by a combined team of the Nigerian Military formations.

READ ALSO: IPOB construed Nigeria Judiciary as most corrupt, injudicious and evil

Today the Nigerian state and Justice Mrs. Binta Nyako are coming out boldly to sweep under the carpet what led to the Nigerian Military invasion of Nnamdi Kanu's home killing 28 persons on ground that came to identify with him since he - Nnamdi Kanu left Kuje prison yard, what a travesty of justice!. How is this possible in a Commonwealth Nation member state, that the Judicial System of Nigeria is enforcing an Islamic Judicial System of ruling in a Self-Determination case?.

Isn't it funny enough that the Islamic Republic of Nigeria wants to allow her Islamic Jihadi Armed Forces marauding as Nigerian Military to get away with this impunity as being exonerated by Mrs. Binta Nyako's ruling?. The people of Biafra have for over the years maintained peace and remain civilized in their quest for self-determination irrespective of the dictatorial  massacre on them; the gory and inhumane slaughtering on them during Operation Python Dancing I & II, illegal abductions of their family members by the agents of the Nigerian Department of State Security Service; the inhumane brutality Biafrans are being forced to endure on a daily basis calls for urgent attention by World leaders to sanction the Nigerian government.

READ ALSO: Biafra Cannot Come Through An Au Fait Means

Giving credence to this very development with respect to rearresting Mazi Nnamdi Kanu the leader of the Biafran people, the people of Biafra wish to at first place the government of the United Kingdom, of the United States government, the Israeli government, friends, associates and the world at large on notice that the ruling by the ever biased Juror Binta Nyako revoking the bail granted to the leader of IPOB  ordering for his rearrest is a huge threat to our peaceful and collective existence as a people and will be resisted by the people; let it be on note that this miserable action by quack Binta Nyako will be challenged at all fronts either diplomatically or in a field battle with the last drop of our blood.

Nnamdi Kanu and his co-defendants have committed no crime known to man under any law, all the people of Biafra are asking for is for a referendum as self-determination is never a crime, Biafrans has had continuously go about their agitations within local and International laws, today Biafrans are the most peaceful freedom fighting organization in the face of this very earth but it seems obvious that the government of Nigeria through her actions and antecedent has chosen to breach our peaceful means of agitating for the sovereign state of Biafra and we are going to meet them head-on.

Culled from The Biafra Post

THE BIAFRA TIMES

Contact us: [email protected]

Twitter:  @BiafraWriters

Edited By Ndubuisi Eke

Publisher: Charles Opanwa

My bench warrant, a travesty of justice, gang-up against me, Nnamdi Kanu explodes, vows to fight the judiciary

•Says international lawyers will take up my case
•We’re heading for an appeal, this judgment cannot stand — Kanu’s lawyer, Ejiofor

March 29, 2019

By Chukwuemeka Chimerue, Chief Editor, and Chikwas Onu Ikpe

ABUJA - Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu, has reacted to Thursday’s ruling of the trial court which ordered for his arrest and the revocation of his bail, describing it as “a travesty of justice and a gang-up against him.”

Kanu who spoke on an emergency broadcast Thursday evening stated that the ruling “is a slap on the face of those that believes in fairness, equity and justice,” vowing to employ every available procedure, including contracting international lawyers to take up the case.

He lambasted the trial judge, Binta Nyako for delivering the ruling, saying she was hellbent on doing the bidding of the northern Fulani cabals and should, therefore, recuse herself from his case because according to him, the judge refused to entertain several applications seeking to establish the circumstances of his disappearance and inability to attend proceedings.

According to the IPOB leader, “I’ve been compelled to make this very emergency broadcast this evening by the turn of events. We know there’s a gang-up against IPOB, there’s a gang-up against Biafra and there’s a gang-up against my humble self but in all their doings, in all their plans, machinations and atrocities, they’ll never prevail because truth and light is on our side.

“What happened today (yesterday) in the lawcourt was just not a travesty but a slap on the face of those that believe in fairness, equity, and justice but in the zoo called Nigeria, Binta Nyako and her likes have reduced law to a laughable situation. What they have done is to drag themselves down with their Sharia mindset into the gutter and we’re here to help them accomplish that since they want to disgrace themselves.

RELATED NEWS: Biafra: Court orders arrest of Nnamdi Kanu, revokes bail

“While our lawyers are fighting this within the limits of the weak Nigerian judiciary, we have instructed our international lawyers to take up this new twist with the international legal and diplomatic order. We warn that all that assist in the unlawful taking of lives and liberty of Biafrans will in time to come, will be adequately punished and held accountable through every lawful means available to us.

“These wicked judges of which Binta Nyako has become one of them are not excluded. We’ll fight them every inch of the way. We’ll expose the zoo judiciary. The Nigerian Bench will be exposed to international ridicule and we’ll leave no stone unturned. Every judgment delivered will be publicly scrutinized with great deal of depth and precision so the world may know that Sharia has come into the legal system of the zoological republic.

“At the court of Binta Nyako, they have decided to do their worst, they have proceeded to issue a bench warrant against me without investigating the circumstances surrounding my non-appearance in their Kangaroo court. With the event that took place in my compound on the 14th of September, 2017, they were hoping with this ridiculous announcement to sweep the evidence given by one of those being tried with me, Chidiebere Onwudiwe, because of the torture we went through in the hands of these vagabonds.

“She did not want to hear the case against the Nigerian Army. Binta Nyako being a Fulani woman is doing the bidding of the cabal because her husband is in trouble, her child is in trouble and she felt the only people they can use to leverage their conditions is IPOB.

READ ALSO: Standard Six is Not Standard Brain; an Open Letter to Ndi-Igbo

“We have done nothing wrong, we have broken no laws. There’s no case before the court of Binta Nyako but she proceeded to conduct this sham trial in the hope of endearing herself to the Fulani caliphate, in the hope of perpetuating the rule of the uncivilized over the children of light and that cannot happen because justice is on our side.

“Having failed to secure bond forfeiture from Senator Abaribe and the rest, she turned her side on my predicament and revoked the bail without hearing the circumstances surrounding the attempt to assassinate me that led to the death of 28 people. There was no judicial review of attack against me. There was no public inquiry surrounding the circumstances that led the Army to come to my home to injure me and end up killing 28 people

“We’re going to teach her a very bitter lesson. We’ll tell her that we’re Biafrans and we can never be intimidated, not by her or by anybody. This very judge today, by the virtue of her ruling has forfeited every right to continue to preside over my case.

“In November of last year, we presented applications after applications before this very judge and in every occasion, she set it aside and said she won’t listen to it. When confronted by our lawyers, her only defence was to say that ‘this is my courtroom, I can do whatever I like’ and they claim that Nigeria is practicing democracy.

READ ALSO: Biafra: How DSS compelled me to write statements during detention, Onwudiwe testifies in court

“If Justice Binta Nyako feels that she’s under any form of pressure from the cabal which we know about, the only thing judicious for her to do in this very case is to refuse herself. She must remove herself from this very case because she has lost every moral authority to continue to preside on it.

“What do you expect from a country where a Sharia judge is the Chief Justice of the Federation? Anybody with any shred of common sense will tell you that it is a legal contradiction to revoke bail after deferring the issue of forfeiture of bail bonds by the sureties. It is a travesty of justice, something that has never happened before.

“If you know Binta Nyako very well, you must ask her these questions: ‘why was it that application after application precisely dealing with the circumstances surrounding the invasion of my house that led to the death of 28 persons were never entertained by your court? How can you proceed to issue a bench warrant without any hearing? How is it possible for you to give every leeway to the prosecution whenever they demand or request it but in our case, you’ve refused to entertain the numerous applications we brought before your court? Why are you conducting the persecution of Biafrans? This sham trial must be discontinued.”

Kanu’s lawyer to appeal against court ruling

Meanwhile, lawyer to the IPOB leader, Mr. Ifeanyi Ejiofor while reacting to the controversial ruling of the Federal High Court, revoking the bail of his client and issuing a bench warrant against him, assured that the order will not stand as it would be going for an appeal to challenge the ruling of the lower court.

Speaking to our reporters, shortly after the court proceedings the IPOB’s senior counsel stated that the defence team would immediately file a motion to vacate the “obnoxious order by the presiding judge,” citing the fact that the judge should have taken into consideration that his client, Nnamdi Kanu, did not willingly jump bail but was forced to leave the country after a failed assassination on him by the Nigerian military.

He added that the court has failed to give the defence an ample opportunity to establish its case on the circumstances leading to the disappearance and inability of the IPOB leader to stand for trial.

“The law is very trite and we’re concerned about the relevant case pursuant to the law which they rely upon which was Section 352(4) of the ACJA. The law also allows us ample time to explain to the court why my client is not here, which is also very sacrosanct.

“Secondly, the matter wasn’t coming up for a substantive suit, it was coming up for the hearing of the sureties’ application which was also noted by the prosecution when he was asked by the court the business of the day. He told the court that we are here for pending applications filed by the sureties.

“The sureties have gone on appeal based on the ruling delivered by the court at the last adjourned date and proceedings in that respect has been stayed(suspended). So it was expected that in that circumstance for a new date to be given to us for an outstanding trial.

“Then on that day, we’ll now furnish the court with particulars of the absence of my client; why he is not here today. That’s what we expected in the circumstance and also tender a shred of verifiable evidence because it is not something we can address the court orally. We have documents to prove in court why he is not here.

“It is more so when he is now confirmed to be alive. We’re now going to give firsthand information from him. It’s no longer like when you cannot confirm his whereabouts or cannot reach him. We know he’s alive and has given an account of what transpired between him and the military. So these are what we expected to explain in court but each time we want to inform or notify the court about this, it will say ‘No, Ejiofor, I don’t want to hear from you people, let me hear from the sureties, when we’re done with them, we now go back to your case.’

“Today(Thursday), we expected that having stayed the proceedings of the suretyship, the court would afford us ample time to address it on why he(Kanu) is not here.

“However, we intend to challenge this ruling on appeal. Of course, the court noted that I’m going for an appeal to challenge the ruling because not that he(judge) doesn’t have the power to revoke his bail or order for his arrest but the fact that we have to be given time for a fair hearing in line with the constitution.

“We haven’t been afforded time for a fair hearing, when this is done, we can now proceed. So, we are going to challenge it because no opportunity was given to the defence to offer the court explanation of his whereabouts but Section 352(4) of the ACJA is very clear that the defendant who is not in court to face trial should be allowed time to explain why he is not there. That’s what the law says and we have not really been given that opportunity since the inception of this case,” Ejiofor posited.

THE BIAFRA TIMES

Contact us: [email protected]

Twitter:  @BiafraWriters

Publisher: Charles Opanwa

Biafra: Court orders arrest of Nnamdi Kanu, revokes bail

•Continues his trial in absentia, suspends proceedings of sureties’ cases

March 28, 2019

By Chukwuemeka Chimerue, Chief Editor, and Chikwas Onu Ikpe

ABUJA - The Federal High Court, sitting in Abuja, has ordered for the immediate arrest of the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu while revoking his bail over his continued absence in court since he was granted bail on April 25, 2017.

Trial Justice Binta Nyako made the ruling Thursday, against the request of the defence counsel, after hearing an oral application from the prosecution counsel, Mr. Shuaibu Labaran who asked the court to revoke the powers of the provisions of Section 352(4) of the Administration of the Criminal Justice Act, ACJA, against the defence whom according to him, has been given enough time to produce the defendant in court.

Labaran said, “My Lord, we humbly submit that the defendant has been given due and adequate opportunities in line with Section 352(4) of the ACJA 2015, and when he fails to utilize such opportunities, the court took the next necessary step of initiating the proceedings requiring the sureties to show cause; and even at that, this Honourable Court has been so magnanimous in granting several adjournments and giving the sureties the opportunity to show cause consequent upon which the court delivered the ruling on November 14, 2018, which is a subject of an appeal.

“My Lord, I wish to state that parties are bound by the record of the court and any process filed in the course of the proceedings, falls back on the record of the court. It is therefore on record that even the sureties sought to withdraw their suretyship because they could not account the reason for absconding after being granted bail.

READ ALSO: Biafra: How DSS compelled me to write statements during detention, Onwudiwe testifies in court

“Finally, it is my humble submission that the request of the learned counsel for the defence is rather belated. This is the kind of application he brought when granting the defendant bail. The court adjourned for nearly 12 months and we urge this Honourable court to discountenance the request for an adjournment to give any explanation and order that the bail granted the defendant be revoked, issue a bench warrant against the defendant and finally issue an order for the trial of the defendant in absentia in compliance with the provision of the ACJA.”

In his reaction, Kanu’s counsel, Mr. Ifeanyi Ejiofor, vehemently objected the prayers of the prosecution on the grounds that the court has not given the defence an opportunity to come to court and explain why the IPOB leader has failed to attend proceedings.

Giving her final ruling after hearing the submissions of both counsels, the presiding judge, Justice Nyako stated that the defence has been given enough time to produce Kanu in court but failed, hence her decision to revoke the bail granted to the defendant and issue warrant for his arrest and continuation of his trial in his absence.

“This case was tried along with three others and was granted bail in this court on April 25, 2017, upon certain conditions. The case was adjourned to July 11, 12, 2017. That day, the case was supposed to come up but the court was on vacation.

“It subsequently came up on October 17, 2017. The learned counsel of the defendant informed the court that the house of the defendant was invaded by the soldiers and they did not know the whereabouts of the defendant.

“Counsel to the first surety told the court that the first surety said he did not know also the whereabouts of the 1st defendant and asked for time to produce him.

“The court ordered that the sureties come to court and show cause why the defendant is not in court. The case came up again on February 20, 2018, for the sureties to show cause why the first defendant has still not appear before the court.

READ ALSO: Standard Six is Not Standard Brain; an Open Letter to Ndi-Igbo

“The three sureties then applied to be discharged from the suretyship because they did not know where the defendant, Nnamdi Kanu is.

“Upon the application of the counsels of the defendants(before now), the trial of the first and only defendant in this case, Nnamdi Kanu, was separated from that of the others. The case of Mr. Nnamdi Kanu was adjourned to March 28, 2018, for the defendant to appear in court or the sureties.

“Till date, there have been four adjournments. All these is for the defendant to appear before the court or for the sureties to either produce him or forfeit their bail bonds which is subsequently ordered on November 14, 2018.

“I have taken time to direct the sequence of proceedings prior to this time, pursuant to the assertion of the ACJA to the 1st defendant (the only defendant) in this case. I’m of the opinion that the learned counsel is only seeking for time or trying to delay the case.

“Once an action has been filed before the court, it must finish in one way or the other; either by the judgment, discharging, or convicting the defendant, or that the prosecution withdraws the charge(s) or the Attorney General withdraws the charge. In the instant time, the case must continue either way.

“The above signifies that I have given counsel more than enough time to produce the defendant and continue with the trial, but they have not been able to do so.

“By virtue of the provision of Section 352(4) of the ACJA, the only option before this court is to continue with the trial of the defendant in his absence.

“Also, since I have not been given any cogent, concrete and convincing reason for the absence of the defendant, I hereby revoke his bail and order that a bench warrant be issued for his arrest,” the judge stated.

The court thereafter, adjourned Kanu’s trial till June 18, 2019.

Earlier during the opening of the day’s hearing, the court had ruled for “stay of proceedings” on the matter involving the sureties, pending the determination of an application filed at the Court of Appeal to relieve them from standing as sureties to the IPOB leader.

Recall that Kanu, as the leader of IPOB, calling for the restoration of the sovereign state of Biafra, was forced to jump bail when he escaped from the country after the invasion of his hometown in Afara-Ukwu, Umuahia, Abia State by military personnel where more than 28 members of IPOB members and his relatives, including his pet dog, Jack, were massacred by armed soldiers in a military operation.

He resurfaced on 19th of October, 2018 at the Western wall of Jerusalem, Israel where he was sighted on video praying at the Wailing Wall.

THE BIAFRA TIMES

Contact us: [email protected]

Twitter:  @BiafraWriters

Publisher: Charles Opanwa

Kunle Olasanmi’s piece, a ploy by FG to re-arrest our recently released members - IPOB

 

By Chukwuemeka Chimerue, Chief Editor | The Biafra Times


July 30, 2018


The leadership of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, has alleged a fresh plot by the federal government to re-arrest its members recently released by an Abuja Federal High Court through an article published on an online newspaper which was authored by one Kunle Olasanmi.

Speaking through its Media and Publicity Secretary, Comrade Emma Powerful, IPOB said Olasanmi’s publication, sponsored by some state agents reveals the intention of the security agencies to re-launch an attack similar to that of Operation Python Dance that culminated with the missing of its leader, Nnamdi Kanu, against its four members currently enjoying bail.

It therefore, described Olasanmi’s publication as mischievous, deceitful and an attempt to mislead the general public through its subtle move to re-write history, warning the Nigerian authorities to respect the decision of the court which ordered that the peace and privacy of the four defendants should not be breached by the security agencies pending the end of their trial.

READ ALSO: Biafra: The rejoiner; "Blame game over Kanu's whereabouts" futile attempt by state sponsored agent exposed

The statement released on Sunday reads that “Our attention has been drawn to a publication in the Leadership newspapers online news titled "Blame game over Kanu's whereabout" which can be accessed via the link https://leadership.ng/2018/07/26/biafra-blame-game-over-kanus-whereabout/.

“This article was credited to one Kunle Olasanmi. A cursory glance at the publication reveals the dark motives of the author, who to all intent and purposes is an agent of the state. His expositions as conveyed, calls for serious caution and commensurate alert on the part of the public that they might not be misled.

“It is a matter of common knowledge, backed by quantum and incontrovertible photographic and video evidence, that the murderous military invasion of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu's (leader of Indigenous People of Biafra) home on the 14th day of September 2017 and his abduction therein by the invading soldiers was an occurrence which the international community and responsible human rights bodies, such as Amnesty International had severally indicted the Nigerian military.

“The Nigerian army's involvement in the invasion and massacre of defenceless and unarmed members of IPOB present in Afaraukwu on that fateful day of 14 September 2017 is the irreducible and constant critical point of reference in any discussions regarding the whereabouts of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.

READ ALSO: Buhari regime not different from any other brutal anti-democratic dictatorship - IPOB

“It will be fair to say the warped views expressed by this Kunle in this newspaper publication is mischievous and deceitful, aimed at misleading the public. Such calculated attempt to rewrite history and absolve a culpable Nigerian state of their complicity in the disappearance of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu must obviously enjoy the funding/sponsorship of the state.

“The subliminal message being conveyed by this vicious author is that plans are at advanced stages for another possible military invasion of the South East and parts of South-South. We envisage another extra-judicial murderous attack on the homes of Nnamdi Kanu's co-defendant that were only recently granted bail after spending three years in prison custody for a crime that does not yet exist.

“Needless to emphasize that Justice Binta Nyako had, pursuant to application made in open court by IPOB lawyers, placed a ban on any form of threat or invasion of Nnamdi Kanu's co-defendants' homes. The judge ordered that no security personnel should disturb the peace of Benjamin Madubugwu, Bright Chimezie, David Nwawuisi and Chidiebere Onwudiwe.
“Kunle's futile attempt to ignore this version of the order again reveals his true motives and gave his article away as a ploy by the Fulani-controlled DSS and military to launch another murderous invasion of Biafraland.

“The essence of this rejoinder is to put the record straight and correct the carefully packaged lies being sold to the gullible public by this mercenary going by the name Kunle. Most importantly, we are obliged to put the international community on alert about this latest plan by the Buhari regime to disrupt the peace in both South East and South South. Should anything untoward happen to Nnamdi Kanu’s co-defendants, this Buhari regime must be held accountable for it. Let the Government refrain from any act that may jeopardise the bail granted to the four innocent Biafrans.

“We continue to demand the military produce Nnamdi Kanu wherever he is being kept. The federal government of Nigeria is yet to formally respond to numerous queries from British government demanding an explanation on the whereabouts of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu their citizen. Only time will tell how long this macabre dance will last.”

THE BIAFRA TIMES 2018

Contact us: [email protected]

Follow us onTwitter: @thebiafratimes          

Like our Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/thebiafratimes

Biafra: The rejoiner; "Blame game over Kanu's whereabouts" futile attempt by state sponsored agent exposed

IPOB Press release | Published by The Biafra Times

July 29, 2018

Our attention has been drawn to a publication in the Leadership newspapers online news titled "Blame game over Kanu's whereabouts" published on July 26, 2018, which can be accessed via the link https://leadership.ng/2018/07/26/biafra-blame-game-over-kanus-whereabout/

This article was credited to one Kunle Olasanmi. A cursory glance at the publication reveals the dark motives of the author, who to all intent and purposes is an agent of the state. His expositions as conveyed, calls for serious caution and commensurate alert on the part of the public that they might not be misled.

It is a matter of common knowledge,  backed by quantum and incontrovertible photographic and video evidence, that the murderous military invasion of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu's (leader of Indigenous People of Biafra) home on the 14th day of September 2017 and his abduction therein by the invading soldiers was an occurrence which the international community and responsible human rights bodies, such as Amnesty International had severally indicted the Nigerian military.

The Nigerian army's involvement in the invasion and massacre of defenceless and unarmed members of IPOB present in Afaraukwu on that fateful day of 14 September 2017 is the irreducible and constant critical point of reference in any discussions regarding the whereabouts of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.

READ ALSO: Buhari regime not different from any other brutal anti-democratic dictatorship - IPOB

It will be fair to say the warped views expressed by this Kunle in this newspaper publication is mischievous and deceitful, aimed at misleading the public. Such calculated attempt to rewrite history and absolve a culpable Nigerian state of their complicity in the disappearance of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu must obviously enjoy the funding/sponsorship of the state.

The subliminal message being conveyed by this vicious author, is that plans are at advanced stages for another possible military invasion of the South East and parts of South-South. We envisage another extra-judicial murderous attack on the homes of Nnamdi Kanu's co-defendant that were only recently granted bail after spending three years in prison custody for a crime that does not yet exist.

Needless to emphasize that Justice Binta Nyako had, pursuant to the application made in open court by IPOB lawyers, placed a ban on any form of threat or invasion of Nnamdi Kanu's co-defendants' homes. The judge ordered that no security personnel should disturb the peace of Benjamin Madubugwu, Bright Chimezie, David Nwawuisi and Chidiebere Onwudiwe.
Kunle's futile attempt to ignore this version of the order again reveals his true motives and gave his article away as a ploy by the Fulani-controlled DSS and military to launch another murderous invasion of Biafraland.

The essence of this rejoinder is to put the record straight and correct the carefully packaged lies being sold to the gullible public by this mercenary going by the name Kunle. Most importantly, we are obliged to put the international community on alert about this latest plan by the Buhari regime to disrupt the peace in both South East and South South. Should anything untoward happen to Nnamdi Kanu’s co-defendants, this Buhari regime must be held accountable for it. Let the Government refrain from any act that may jeopardise the bail granted to the four innocent Biafrans.

We continue to demand the military produce Nnamdi Kanu wherever he is being kept. The federal government of Nigeria is yet to formally respond to numerous queries from the British government demanding an explanation on the whereabouts of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu their citizen. Only time will tell how long this macabre dance will last.



COMRADE EMMA POWERFUL  MEDIA AND PUBLICITY SECRETARY FOR IPOB.

THE BIAFRA TIMES 2018

Contact us: [email protected]

Follow us onTwitter: @thebiafratimes           

Like our Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/thebiafratimes

Biafra: Excess Biafrans Make Excess Sureties For IPOB Members On Bail, Reasons Biafrans Should Not Be Dared

By Eluwa Chidiebere Chinazu | For Biafra Writers

July 1, 2018

Prior to the stringent conditions attached to the bail of four members of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, the Nigerian government has been holding their horses to see whether the defendants would be abandoned by their people to languish in prison like orphans due to their perceived inflicted fear of who to stand in for them as sureties after witnessing the horrible persecution and human rights abuse of Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe, first surety to the IPOB leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, passed through in the hands of the Nigerian security personnel. But contrary to their intentions, many Biafrans, more than the actual number of sureties required, stormed the court on Wednesday, June 27, 2018, to append their signatures to effect the bail conditions of the quartet defendants that members who came in excess were asked to standby.

This situation, l believe, will put to rest the mindless witch hunting and policing of politicians who are being accused of funding the activities of IPOB. A global organisation like IPOB as severally stated, cannot be funded by an individual. IPOB is a unique freedom fighting outfit substantiated with people of integrity and supported by Biafrans both at home and diaspora. This futile accusations from the Nigerian government employed in diverting the attention of the public from their corrupt practices such as the N30 billion budget fraud perpetrated by the President Muhammadu Buhari-led administration is a typical example.

READ ALSO: Bombing of Nwodo's home: Police, DSS and Ohanaeze are hell-bent to tarnish our image - IPOB

This act has also brought the doggedness and bravery of Biafrans to bear. The East should be feared, I must say. During the Biafra war, only a handful supported the cause and it lingered to three years. As a result of the deliberate marginalization of the Biafrans that didn't end with the war, they were conditioned to buying and selling. It is still with the same skills they acquired in buying and selling that they will utilise to sell Nigeria out through their freedom.
The game is over for Nigeria. Now, Biafrans are poised for the final journey towards freedom and nothing can stop them. Really, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu has awakened many and also restored the dignity of the Biafran race to what they were known for. Imagine a united Biafra against Nigeria.


The Biafra Times
Edited By Chukwuemeka Chimerue

IPOB vindicated: Public exposure of 30 billion Naira budget fraud, the reason behind Senator Abaribe's arrest

By Chijindu Benjamin Ukah | For Biafra Writers

June 27, 2018

The statement made by Justice Binta Nyako the judge presiding over the trial of our leader Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, in federal high court Abuja yesterday June 26, 2018, stating “I did not order Senator Abaribe's arrest by SSS, his arrest has nothing to do with Nnamdi Kanu's case”  has vindicated the Indigenous people of Biafra, IPOB. From every indication, it is now obvious that the arrest of Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe by the DSS was in no way connected to his standing as a surety for IPOB leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu as earlier reported by some arm-chair journalists.

This is a confirmation of the press statement by the media and publicity secretary of IPOB, Mr Emma Powerful which was released on June 25, 2018, the statement read in parts; “The only plausible reason Senator Abaribe was arrested is because of his public exposure of 30 billion Naira budget fraud perpetrated by the APC government and its leadership. “The exposure of that budget fraud remains the indisputable fact that no amount of blackmail with the name of IPOB will ever eradicate. Attempting to link Senator Abaribe to the fanciful concoction of the purportedly proscribed organization, gun running and terrorism is a cheap and tacky attempt, designed to appeal to the base instinct of those opposed to the idea of self-determination as championed by IPOB”.

RELATED NEWS: DSS disregard for the rule of law a norm under Buhari's government

It is also an indisputable fact that distinguished Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe has been the only out-spoken senator from the Southeast, he is known for standing for justice, speaking against injustice and defending the democracy that Nigerian state claim it operates. Senator Abaribe is seen as a threat by the dictatorial government of Muhammadu Buhari, Aso rock cabals and their slaves from the Southeast.
Senator Abaribe has long been marked to be politically rubbished, frustrated and destroyed by the APC led government. There is no doubt that his illegal arrest by the DSS is a step towards the move to silence him politically, but without any equivocation, they have failed; no one can silence Sen. Enyinnaya Abaribe, not even the Abuja Cabals.

Anyone conversant with Buhari's tyranny system of government does not need to consult an oracle to know who ordered his arrest because it now obvious that his arrest was ordered by the APC led Government because of his public exposure of 30 billion Naira budget fraudulently sneaked into the budget.

The Biafra Times 2018
Contact us: [email protected]

Biafra: Court orders FG to serve legal processes on Kanu’s sureties

•SSS, not an extension of the court, I didn’t issue any order for Abaribe’s arrest, says judge

By Chukwuemeka Chimerue, Chief Editor & Chikwas Onu Ikpe


June 26, 2018

ABUJA - An Abuja Division of the Federal High Court has on Tuesday, directed the Attorney General of the Federation, AGF, to serve court processes to the three sureties to leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu, for them to show cause or file response against the forfeiture of their bail bonds.

The presiding Justice Binta Nyako made the ruling following an objection moved by Aloy Ejimakor, lawyer to the second surety, Immanu-El Shalom Oka-Ben Madu, challenging the jurisdiction of the court to order the sureties to show cause and also to give them time to respond to the processes.

According to Ejimakor, “The application on behalf of the second surety was filed and served yesterday. We filed and succeeded in serving the AGF yesterday and all party opponent. That application is challenging the jurisdiction of this Honourable court with the order to show cause on some of the grounds enunciated by the learned colleague.”

Counsel to Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe, Chukwuma Maduchukwu Umeh, SAN, in his reaction, also aligned himself to the preliminary objection of the second surety.

READ ALSO: Victory for Nnamdi Kanu & IPOB as Court orders FG to respond to surety’s motion

Ruling in favour of the sureties, the judge, however, expressed dissatisfaction on the perceived lull while accusing the defence lawyers to the sureties of deliberate attempt to delay the progress of the case.

“Yes, it is your right but I want to say that the antics of the counsels in this matter will not be tolerated. This matter was adjourned as far back as March; you waited until yesterday to file processes so that you can truncate the proceedings in this matter.

“But unfortunately for you, some people who also think that they are as smart as you are have arrested one of your clients (Abaribe). If you want to continue to delay the time in this matter, I will help you to delay it. However, I’ll give you your right to reply but am going to give you a date after vacation,” the judge stated.

Meanwhile, Abaribe’s lawyer, Mr Umeh, in a motion, brought to the attention of the court the arrest and persecution of his client by the State Security Service, SSS, asking the court to declare that he be set free.

“Your Lordship, I need to bring to the attention of the court (that) the first surety is here but he’s here in chains because of his role in this case. He only came here by the grace of the office of the Director-General of the SSS who arrested, detained and kept him incommunicado until this morning he was expected to come for this proceeding after which he will go back.

“We need to bring to the attention of the court that the surety who did what the court ask him to do is arrested and detained.
“Your Lordship, I think it has to do with the issue of IPOB; the issue of standing as the surety of the accused person,” he stated.

However, in a swift reaction, the judge explained that Abaribe’s alleged arrest has nothing to do with her, adding that she has not ordered anybody to arrest the Senator.

READ MORE: DSS disregard for the rule of law a norm under Buhari's government

According to the judge, “This has nothing to do with me. His being arrested has nothing to do with this case.

“How did you know (that his arrest is connected to this case)? I did not make any order for his arrest. SSS is not an extension of the court. So, it had nothing to do with me. Whether or not he had been arrested, with or without justification, you know what to do. So don’t bring the drama into this case.”

Subsequently, the case was adjourned till November 14, 2018, for continued hearing.

The Biafra Times 2018
Contact us: [email protected]

DSS disregard for the rule of law a norm under Buhari's government

By Princewill Akubumma | For Biafra Writers

June 26, 2018

The presiding judge of the Federal high court in Abuja, Justice Binta Nyako today June 26, 2018 stated categorically that she never ordered for the arrest of Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe in the first place and that his arrest has nothing to do with the bail bond he signed on behalf of the Supreme leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.

If Justice Binta Nyako never ordered for the arrest of the distinguished Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe whose case for signing as one of the sureties for the IPOB leader was still at the federal high court in Abuja, then on whose order was Senator Abaribe arrested and what was his crime?

It is now clear to all and sundry that democracy and the rule of law in Nigeria under the dictatorial regime of Muhammadu Buhari has died a natural death as he and his Fulani Muslim dominated security apparatus of the country has been running the country aground through their constant violation of rule of law and their constant interference in the legal system which they have highjacked with impunity.

To say the least, this is a testament to the fact that it is the same manner that the Fulani Muslim dominated army and DSS went to the home of the Supreme leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra on September 14, 2017 and attacked him just days before his court case in Abuja with the intention of killing him and stalling the case of which they knew they would lose if it should hold because the man they are accusing for treason and other trumped-up charges has not broken any known law of the Federal Republic of Nigeria according to the tenets of their 1999 amended constitution.
The judicial system of Nigeria has overnight become inept and inconsequential in the present administration of Muhammadu Buhari and his witch hunting watchdogs, the DSS and the Army of oppression and occupation who has been aiding and colluding with the terrorists in Nigeria, in committing crimes of various degrees.

They no longer follow the due process of the law which involved in the issuance of warrant of arrest before arrest should be made but rather they don't care whose ox is gored whenever they marked any opposition or critics of their corrupt practices for an arrest, all they do is to black boot their homes and forcefully take them away to an underground cell for torturing and summarily execution.

What is happening in Nigeria today is an oppressive regime meant to crush any opposition and critics. We therefore call on every international human right body, civil society group, Amnesty international and every lover of democracy to interven in this ugly situation going on in Nigeria under the watch and endorsement of President Muhammadu Buhari whose actions and body languages is dragging the nation into an untold state of anarchy and lawlessness.

We at the Biafra writers press are lending our voices for the unconditional release of Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe who represents Abia South senatorial district in the national assembly of Nigeria and urge the government of the day to follow due process of law in handling any matter concerning our people.

The Biafra Times
Contact us: [email protected]

IPOB Trial: Court grants bail to Kanu’s co-defendants with stringent conditions

•Says they must be allowed to enjoy their bail


By Chukwuemeka Chimerue, Chief Editor & Chikwas Onu Ikpe | The Biafra Times


June 25, 2018

ABUJA— A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja Monday, granted bail to four detained members of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, standing trial alongside their leader, Nnamdi Kanu, on treasonable felony charges.

Trial Justice Binta Nyako while delivering ruling on the bail applications held that there was no objection filed by the Prosecution in respect to their applications.

The court while granting them bail also put into consideration the period of time they have already spent in prison custody, and their deteriorating health conditions, since 2016 when they were arrested and arraigned to court.

According to the judge, “I have heard all the affidavits in support of the applications, and I have not seen any response opposing them.

“However, I have decided to look at the grant vis-á-vis the charge, and the term of imprisonment bordering on the same and also the time spent in custody. Each of the four defendants have been in custody for almost three years.

READ ALSO: IPOB SPIT FIRE, GIVES FG 48HRS TO RELEASE SENATOR ABARIBE

“The second and third count charge which is levelled against the second and third defendants respectively carries a punishment of five years on conviction while the first count which affects all the four defendants carries a punishment of seven years on conviction.

“I have also been kept abreast with the medical condition of the 3rd defendant. I have also read the judgement of my learned colleague, Ojukwu Ijeoma, under the provision of the Federal High Court Uyo; which granted bail to the 1st defendant.

“I have also read Section 162 of the ACJA which validates the grant of bail to suspects in capital and non-capital offences.

“Taking all these into consideration, I have not seen why, at this stage, I should not grant bail to the defendants.

“Consequently, I hereby grant each of the defendants' bail, pending on the conditions that would follow suit.”

The court, however, listed a series of stringent conditions attached to their bail which it said the defendants must jealously abide in or risk the revocation of their bail.

“The sum of 10 million naira should be deposited to the account of the chief registrar by each defendant with two sureties each with like sum and each of them must deposit their international travel documents (passports) to the court and must not travel out of the country without the permission of the court,” it stated.

Other bail conditions includes that the defendants “should not be seen participating in rallies, gatherings, or granting press interviews. According to the judge, “no 'oyoyo' welcome gathering should be entertained pending when the trial is concluded, they must report every two weeks to their state commissioners of police.

According to the ruling, the first defendant, Bright Chimezie is to report to the Rivers State commissioner of police, the second and fourth defendants, Chidiebere Onwudiwe and David Nwawuisi, respectively, should report to the Enugu State Police commissioner while the third defendant, Benjamin Madubugwu will report to the Anambra State commissioner of police.
Stressing on the need to respect the bail conditions, the court further warned that violating or floating any of the conditions would warrant it to issue an order to the police for their re-arrest and detention to Kuje prisons of which they would not be granted bail till the end of the trial.

It added that “the defendants are under the custody of the court and they must be allowed to enjoy their bail.”

The judge also obliged them time to perfect the financial terms of their bail bonds while the defendants go home but under some conditions which was not stated by the court.

The court also ruled that the personal belongings of the defendants confiscated during their arrest will remain in custody till the end of the trial.

It thereafter, adjourned the case, for continued trial, to November 14, 2018.

The Biafra Times 2018
Contact us: [email protected]

IPOB Trial: Court hears bail application of Kanu's co-defendants, adjourns ruling till May 21

• I'm tired of hearing the sound of your voices — Judge blasts defence counsels

By Chikwas Onu Ikpe
For Biafra Writers

April 14, 2018

ABUJA— An Abuja Division of the Federal High Court, on Friday, heard the bail application of Biafra activist, Mr. Bright Chimezie who replaced leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu as the first defendant, and 'notarized' the move for bail applications of the other three defendants standing trial alongside on treasonable felony charges.

The court proceedings began at exactly 12:15pm, shortly after the arrival of the defence counsels, Barristers Chukwudi Igwe, E. A. N. Ejiofor, Esere, and Chukwuma Ozugwu (who was standing in for Barrister Maxwell Okpara), and the Prosecution counsel, Colins Eromonsele, Esq. (who was standing in for Shuaibu M. Labaran).

Recall that the day was hitherto slated for hearing the bail applications of the quartet defendants, but the courtroom was filled with perplexity when the presiding Judge, Hon. Justice Binta Nyako, on objection of the Prosecution, selected to hear the bail application of only the first defendant, Mr. Bright Chimezie.

"My Lord, before this court are two separate applications; one is seeking the bail of the four defendants, while the other one is challenging the competence of the two charges preferred against the same.

Read Also: BIAFRA: [COURT UPDATE]: COURT HEARS BAIL APPLICATION OF DETAINED IPOB ACTIVISTS

"If you can get, both applications are very important that they are heard today because both seek the bail of the four defendants. The first one is asking for bail so that he will be released, having been in custody for over two years, particularly in an underground cell," Chukwudi Igwe, counsel to the first defendant informed the court.

Similarly, Counsel to the fourth defendant, Mr David Nwawuisi, joined issues via a written application, prompting the court to strike out the charges slandered against his client.

He said, "My Lord, I have a written application for bail of the fourth defendant, dated and filed on February 13, 2018 as well as an application filed on March 23, 2018, challenging the court to strike out the charge levelled against the same."

Howbeit, the court would have ordinarily heard the entire bail applications, owing to the emphasis it laid on the last adjourned date, that "all pending applications would be disposed off" on Friday.

Read Also: We Demand Justice and Fairness; IPOB to Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako

Also, in his motion, the Prosecution counsel, Mr Labaran, told the court that they are yet to file responses to the other application, and also the bail applications filed by the defence lawyers to the three other defendants. Hence, applied for time in order to respond to their respective applications.

In his words: "My Lord, the reason we are here is for the court to hear the bail application of the first defendant, not of the preliminary objection that had been filed before this court. We have substantive date for this matter. So, we urge this court to concentrate on the business of today."

Following several arguments by the defence counsels on the basis of hearing the bail applications of their clients, Justice Nyako declined hearing the bail applications of the other three defendants; saying she would not accede to oral applications.

Read Also: Nnamdi Kanu: Hold Nwodo, Army responsible for murder of agitators – IPOB leaders

The trial judge noted that, "What I'm saying is that I will stick to the bail application of the first defendant. I will oblige you to only move a bail application then allow them (Prosecution) to respond. In this court, I take bail applications formally. I don't take oral bail applications. If you want me to hear your bail applications, then you file it."

Reacting to the move of bail applications as okayed by the court, counsel to the third defendant, E. A. N. Ejiofor, Benjamin Madubugwu, in a written address, adopted as an oral submission, enunciated three reasons why his client should be granted bail after hearing his bail application in the course of time; pleading the court to also make an order restricting the Nigerian military and other security agencies from nearing or invading the homestead of his client without the backing of court orders.

"My Lord, I wouldn't want to bore you but urge you to liberally grant bail to the third defendant, on the grounds of his ill-health condition. Secondly, for the time spent by the third defendant which has almost consumed the entire period the witness might have risen. Lastly, in the grant of good behaviour.

"Furthermore, My Lord, upon granting bail to my client, make orders restricting the Nigerian army and the DSS operatives from invading his house."



However, the judge retorted, and gave her ruling, obliging the prosecution counsel time to respond to the bail applications of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th defendants.

"You see, you are already getting me tired, and you know today is Friday. I have just released my registrar to go for prayers and you have made me miss my own prayers.

"You people like to augment the sound of your voices. I'm tired of hearing the sound of your voices, I have heard them severally.

"I have given you notice. The Prosecution should be given time to respond to these applications. It is upon acknowledgement that I shall reply or counter the said applications,” she stated.

Resultantly, the Court adjourned till May 21, 2018 (being the same day the substantive trial had been fixed for hearing), to reply the bail applications of the three other defendants pending the response of the Prosecution, and a final ruling on the bail application of the first defendant.


THE BIAFRA TIMES
Editor: Chukwuemeka M. Chimerue 
Publisher: Chijindu Benjamin Ukah
Contact us: [email protected]

BIAFRA: [COURT UPDATE]: COURT HEARS BAIL APPLICATION OF DETAINED IPOB ACTIVISTS

The Biafra Times | April 13, 2018

In the act of making headway to a Division of the Federal High Court in Abuja, today, being the rescheduled day inscribed for hearing the bail application of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th defendants, filed by Barrister Ifeanyi Ejiofor–led legal team of IPOB;  following the upshot of the amended charges and a "not guilty" plea entered by the quartet defendants.

It is exigent to note that Bright Chimezie, the 1st defendant in the amended charges had been granted bail by the Federal High Court, dated May, 24, 2017, which it directed an "immediate release" of Bright Chimezie from detention and a compensation fine of five million Naira to the same. Nevertheless, the Department of State Security Services, whom apprehended him brazenly flaunted the positive orders of the court.

Howbeit, he [Bright Chimezie] has been re–arraigned and adjoined to face trials with the three other defendants at the Federal High Court Abuja, in an amended three-count charge.

Similarly, the three other defendants, Benjamin Madubugwu, David Nwawuisi, and Chidiebere Onwudiwe are being remanded in prison custody for almost three years, owing to the lack of ingredients that boarders on the "phantom" and "frivolous" charges slanted against them; and thereupon have no argument to have appeared before the court.

Also, before the court are pending applications aligned by the lead counsel of IPOB, 'challenging the Juries of the court to hear the suit' coming up for the bail grant.

Hence, we look forward to the sanctity of the judicial process to absorb and effectuate the bail cum release of these activists.


Stay tuned with BIAFRA WRITERS PRESS as we bring you LIVE reports from FHC today.

By Chikwas Onu Ikpe
[The Biafra Times Correspondent]

We Demand Justice and Fairness; IPOB to Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako

Published by The Biafra Times

PRESS RELEASE | Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB)

12th April 2018

RE: JUSTICE BINTA MURTALA-NYAKO SHOULD DO JUSTICE TO IPOB THE SAME WAY SHE DID TO BOKO HARAM SUSPECTS

The Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB) hereby wish to acknowledge Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako for the uncommon courage she demonstrated days ago in dismissing terrorism charges against two Boko Haram suspects on grounds of lack of diligent prosecution by the office of the Attorney General of the Federation. We consider this a landmark decision that not only binds her court in all similar cases but should also serve as an example to other courts before whom such prosecutorial misconduct continues unabated, especially with regards to IPOB members (Benjamin Madubugwu, David Nwawusi, Bright Chimezie Ishinwa & Chidiebere Onwudiwe) languishing in detention since 2015 without trial.

More particularly, we expect the Honorable Justice before whom Charges have been pending against four of the above IPOB members, including our leader Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, to do justice and likewise dismiss said Charges for the following reasons:

1. With regard to our leader Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, it is undisputed that he has been ready for trial since he was arrested and charged in 2015 but the prosecution has proved unready and resorted to the dilatory tactics of filing several applications for amendment of the Charges which were all granted by Justice Nyako. And just when it was becoming clear that trial must ensue and no further prosecutorial delay will be entertained, the Complainant (Federal Government) resorted to the use of lethal military force to extra-judicially murder Nnamdi Kanu in order to permanently deny him his day in court to prove his innocence.

2. As regards the other IPOB patriots charged together with Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the story is the same and even worse as they have been denied bail and locked up in prison since 2015 while the prosecution continues to demonstrate an abject lack of diligent prosecution through incessant applications for amendment of Charges, with the last one being in March 2018. Bright Chimezie Ishinwa was discharged and acquitted by a Federal High Court in Uyo and awarded 5 Million Naira damages. DSS refused to release him, he is still in detention.

3. When trial finally commenced last month against the other four defendants charged together with Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, it emerged from the direct and cross-examination of the only witness presented by the prosecution that the defendants actually have no case to answer, especially with respect to the allegations of treasonable felony and the so-called concealment of an imported transmitter. Instead of continuing with the trial the prosecution asked for two months adjournment. Why they requested such lengthy adjournment defies logic since they claim they have their witnesses ready. It is very clear the AGF has no credible witness to present hence the culture of adjournment after adjournment to prolong the illegal detention of these Biafrans. If they were Fulani by ethnicity, they would have been released by now.

4. The world have observed from the proof of evidence and list of witnesses disclosed to the court that the prosecution lacks any evidence and witnesses to even make out a prima facie case against Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and the other accused IPOB patriots. Even Justice Binta Nyako ruled the same when she considered the evidence or lack of before the court. Moreover, secession is not a crime known to Nigerian legal system so why is a learned judge like Binta Nyako entertaining a baseless charge not founded upon any law?

5. Based on the bold decision rendered by Justice Nyako in the said Boko Haram cases, we expect that the honorable Justice will apply her decision across the board and without any discrimination whatsoever by also dismissing the charges pending before her court against our leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, Benjamin Madubugwu, Bright Chimezie, David Nwawusi and Chidiebere Onwudiwe.

6. If Justice Nyako feels strongly that the Federal Government has unresolved issues with IPOB, she has the authority to invoke her powers to recommend a 'political solution' under Section 17 (Reconciliation in civil and criminal cases) of the Federal High Court Act, which provides that "In any proceedings in the Court, the Court may promote reconciliation among the parties thereto and encourage and facilitate the amicable settlement thereof". We firmly believe that this may have informed the decision of the court to grant such lengthy adjournment in the first place. Justice Binta Nyako should not entertain any further requests for adjournment of this matter or calculated non-appearance by the prosecution team as a way of delaying justice from being served in this matter. Since it has been clearly demonstrated that the government is not willing to proceed with the case and lack the witnesses to testify for them, the only sensible left for Justice Binta Nyako is to dismiss the charges and free the detainees until the government is ready to prosecute the case.

7. Finally, we wish to remind Justice Nyako that while members of Boko Haram have taken lives of thousands of Nigerians and still doing so, no member of IPOB has taken the life of a single Nigerian or committed any act of violence whatsoever. There is no moral or legal justification for the definite detention of IPOB activists in Nigerian prisons.

We believe that what is good for Fulani Boko Haram suspects is also good for Igbo Biafra activists that never bombed or killed anybody unlike Boko Haram and Fulani herdsmen.

Signed:

Mazi Chika Edoziem

Head of Directorate of State (HDoS)

Indigenous People of Biafra

World Headquarters

Langenfeld Germany


The Biafra Times 2018

IPOB: Opening day of trial in the Conspiracy to Commit Treasonable Felony case against 4 IPOB family members at Federal High Court Abuja

[WORLD EXCLUSIVE]

Publisher: Chijindu Benjamin Ukah || THE BIAFRA TIMES

IPOB Press Statement

23 March 2018 

~blow by blow account

~IPOB was not an illegal group when Nnamdi Kanu was arrested - Govt Witness

• We the worldwide family of the Indigenous People of Biafra wish to draw the attention of the civilised world to what transpired at Justice Binta Nyako's court in Abuja on Thursday 22 March 2018 at the commencement of the trial of 4 innocent Biafrans. The world must know that they are standing trial for offences not known to any law in Nigeria. A trial of this magnitude on the opening day usually witness the key evidence or testimony from the prosecution or their witness but what played out in court was anything but. This trial, observed on social media by millions of people all over the world, waited anxiously for the 'smoking gun' or key government evidence to be tendered in court or alluded to in oral evidence given by the prosecution witness to no avail. Nothing happened!

It turned out that the key evidence the government is relying upon to gain a conviction of conspiracy to commit treasonable felony is a non operational and disused AM Shortwave transmitter legally purchased from Nigerian Customs at an auction in Apapa Lagos. We have taken the precaution of attaching the full transcript of the witness testimony under oath to buttress this point.

The four IPOB family members standing trial have been in illegal detention for nearly nearly three years, with proper trial only commencing now on March 22, 2018. Thankfully and for the first time in public, the key witness for the Federal Government of Nigeria admitted in court that being a member of IPOB was not a crime when the defendants were arrested.

The Witness, simply identified as AB to hide his true identity, as directed by the presiding judge, is a DSS officer that claimed that he "investigated" Bright Chimezie, one of the defendants, after he was arrested by the DSS at Uyo, Akwa Ibom State. Led in evidence by prosecution counsel, the witness also testified that Mr Chimezie was an IPOB 'Welfare Officer in charge of giving money donated by IPOB members to assist widows IPOB members killed by security agents during their demonstrations on self determination'.

The Witness further testified that Mr Chimezie was the one who took delivery of the Container bearing the transmitter the government had alleged IPOB intended to use to broadcast its 'message of self determination in Nigeria'.

On cross examination by Chukwudi Igwe, defense Counsel to Bright Chimezie, the Witness contradicted himself by testifying that 'IPOB was not an illegal group and belonging to it was not illegal when Chimezie was arrested'.

It will be recalled that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of IPOB who has been missing since the Nigeria army attacked his home, was also arrested for the same transmitter-related 'offense of self determination or preparations to secede' as stated on the various Charge Sheets'.

Upon further cross examination, the DSS witness also admitted that he did not travel to Uyo to find out why Mr Chimezie was arrested and that he did not travel to the Lagos Wharf to investigate whether the 'Container was cleared or smuggled'. Informed by counsel that the Container was not smuggled but properly cleared, the Witness answered that he did not know and that he was just stating what he was told by 'the team of DSS investigators'.

Further, the Witness admitted that he did not see any Bill of Lading showing that it was IPOB that imported the Container at issue. Asked to explain what he really did as an 'investigator' when he didn't visit the scenes of the alleged offense, the DSS officer stated that the only thing he did was to take the Written Statement of Bright Chimezie and endorsed it.

On further cross examination by other defense counsels, the Witness was asked to explain whether it is illegal for a group to cater for the welfare of widows of its members, the Witness responded that it's not illegal. Asked to explain why DSS kept Chimezie in detention this long when he was not the one that imported the Container, and being member of IPOB was not illegal, the Witness could not offer any explanation, whereupon the defense counsel requested the court to note his non-response.

Meanwhile, it has emerged that defense counsels have filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection challenging jurisdiction and praying the court to strike the charge of 'Treasonable Felony' against the defendants on the grounds that 'agitating for self-determination or secession is not a crime known to any Nigerian Law'. In the Motion, counsels argued that 'the allegation that defendants were making preparations to secede is not one of the FOUR offenses defined as a treasonable felony under Section 41 of the Criminal Code'. The Section provides as follows:

"Any person who forms an intention to effect any of the following purposes, that is to say-

(a) to remove during his term of office otherwise than by constitutional means the President as Head of State of the Federation and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces thereof; or

(b) to likewise remove during his term of office the Governor of a State; or

(c) to levy war against Nigeria in order by force or constraint to compel the President to change his measures or counsels, or in order to put any force or constraint upon, or in order to intimidate or overawe any House of the National Assembly or any other Legislature or legislative authority; or

(d) to instigate any foreigner to make any armed invasion of Nigeria or of any of the territories thereof; and manifests such intention by an overt act, is guilty of a felony and is liable to imprisonment for life".

On the basis of the above provisions, defense counsels have contended in their Motion that 'preparations to secede' is not an 'offense captured under any of the four offenses named at Section 41 of the Criminal Code that should sustain the Charge of conspiracy to secede for which the defendants were charged under Section 516 of the Criminal Code'.

It will be recalled that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was also charged for the same offense that defense counsels have now challenged as not being an offense in Nigeria.

In view of this new and surprising development, the court adjourned the trial to May 1, 2018; and scheduled a hearing on the Motion challenging its jurisdiction as well as the applications for bail on March 28, 2018.

If according to the government witness, IPOB was not an illegal group when Nnamdi Kanu was arrested in October 2015, why then is the trial going ahead? Or is it because of the irrational fear of the success that Biafra will become or the morbid Hausa Fulani hatred for IPOB and Nnamdi Kanu. Justice Binta Nyako must as a matter of public decency dismiss the frivolous charges, acquit the defendants and apologise to IPOB on behalf of the Nigerian judiciary.

COMRADE EMMA POWERFUL MEDIA AND PUBLICITY SECRETARY FOR IPOB

________________________________________

Please find attached transcript of government witness statement under oath in the court of Justice Binta Nyako.

Transcript of Testimony of PW1, DSS Officer, Emmanuel Isaac, aka AB.
(As Recorded suo sponte by Aloy Ejimakor).

Prelude: On the cue of Prosecution Counsel (LABARAN) on Direct, Witness AB identified Bright Chimezie and Onwudiwe by name, but stated that it's only Chimezie he 'has something to say about, not Onwudiwe'.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY LABARAN, Esq BEGINS ...

Question (Q). In November 2016, can you tell the court where you were posted?

Answer (Ans). I was at the Department of investigations, headquarters, SSS, Abuja.

Q. Tell court how you met first Defendant (Bright Chimezie).

Ans. I met him on 25th November 2016 when he was brought to my department. My head of department directed me to interview him and then I took him to my office which I share with other officers. When we got to my office, I offered him a seat and we had a little interaction. And in the course of the interaction, I asked him why he was arrested. He told me voluntarily the reason why he was arrested and where he was arrested.

Q. After interaction, what followed.

Ans. I asked if he can write what he told me out of his own accord. During that interaction, before then I told him that you are here and nobody will force you. I cautioned him that nobody is forcing you, but if you tell me anything voluntarily, it will be used against you in court.

Q. What happened after.

Ans. I gave him a form - the statement form to reduce what he told me verbally in writing. He proved to me that he can write. He filled the statement form, and then wrote what he told me verbally and then he endorsed it. Then I now asked him, whether it's ok, and he said it's ok, whereupon I endorsed the statement.

Q. Then what.

Ans. I handed the statement to my superior officer, who asked Chimezie if he made such statement, he said he did, and then my superior officer endorsed it.

Q. Can you recognize the statement.

Ans. Yes, because it bears logo of SSS and also it should bear my signature.
*** Whereupon he identified the Statement which the Court then marked as Exhibit PW1A ***

Q. Did you do make any findings in the course of your job as an investigator.

Ans. Yes. I investigated and found out that he is a member of ipob. He joined in PH. And my investigation also revealed that he was the one that took delivery of the container imported by IPOB AS A GROUP, containing a Transmitter. I discovered that he bright took the container to one Benjamin Madubugwu. I also discovered that in that 2016, he was in charge of the welfare of wives of members of ipob. And being in charge of that welfare, he severally collected money from some of group members based in abroad.

Q. Is that all?

Ans. That's all

END OF DIRECT EXAMINATION

CROSS EXAMINATION BY C. IGWE, Esq. BEGINS ....

Q. Can you remind me that your name again.

Ans. AB.

Q. Can you tell this court when Bright was arrested.

Ans. I don't know when he arrested. I only know when I met him.

Q. Can you tell this court at what point the first Defendant was arrested.

Ans. Like I said earlier I was not part of the team that arrested him. So I don't know when he was arrested.

Q. Can you tell this court how long first Defendant has been in the custody of your office.

Ans. I don't know.

Q. Are you aware that the first Defendant when he was arrested in Uyo made a statement at your office in Uyo.

Ans. I am not aware.

Q. How many times did you visit Uyo where first Defendant was arrested to conduct investigation.

Ans. I did not visit Uyo.

Q. Did he tell you why he was arrested.

Ans. Yes.

Q. In the course of telling you why he was arrested, as an investigating SSS officer for six years, tell this court why you did not go as far as finding out where and why he was arrested.

** HERE LABARAN (Lead Prosecutor) OBJECTED on grounds of 'witness intimidation'.

And C. IGWE explains to the Court... that 'My intention for this line of questioning is to find out whether he actually investigated this case'.

COURT OVERRULES THE OBJECTION, whereupon C. IGWE continues with the Cross ...

Q. Tell this court, how many times you visited Uyo or the place of his arrest.

Ans. I did not visit Uyo.

Q. Tell this court how you found out those things you said you found out during your investigation.

Ans. We have our way of conducting investigation and that's not what I should be lecturing you.

** Whereupon the court interjected angrily and directed that he should answer the question on how. And the he continued and stated ... my department and the investigation team went further to confirm the statement of the first Defendant and a search team made a search and they discovered a container and Bright Chimezie confirmed that he took delivery of the container and he made mention of the person who cleared the container and when he cleared it.

Q. Tell this court the point the first Defendant was told the offense he committed.

Ans. First Defendant confessed to the offense.

** AT THIS POINT ....
C. IGWE, Esq applied for exhibition of PW1A to the Witness. Whereupon the clerk gave it to the Witness.

Cross Examination continues ...

Q. Bright wrote that statement and you endorsed and your superior officer endorsed it. Read out what the first Defendant wrote.

Whereupon ... Witness began to read the statement and finished it to the end.

Q. Can you tell this court whether the statement you just read was made voluntarily or as a response to questions you put to him.

Ans. No.

Q. How long the was the first Defendant in custody of SSS before he was arraigned before this court two days ago.

Ans. I don't know.

Q. You told the court that you made findings in the course of your investigation. Right?

Ans. Point of correction. I said ... in the course of the investigations, not necessarily my own investigation.

Q. So, you did not make any findings yourself. True or false.

Ans. False.

Q. But you said that Nnamdi Kanu and Chimezie imported the container.

Ans. I did not say that. I said that findings were made that Chimezie took delivery of container imported by IPOB on instructions of Nnamdi Kanu and took it to Madubugwu.

Q. As the principal or major investigator, did you extend your investigation to the wharf to truly ascertain the container.

Ans. No. I did not travel to the wharf.

Q. Did you extend your 'findings' to the wharf.

Ans. No. I did not.

Q. Why didn't you think it was necessary to find out if this container was coming from a nigerian wharf. Or was the container cleared at the wharf or smuggled in.

Ans. I wouldn't know whether it was cleared or smuggled.

Q. When you made the findings that he took delivery of the container, did you extend the findings to finding out whether his name was on the Bill of Lading.

Ans. No.

Q. Am I right to say that when you were giving testimony, you stated that the container was imported by IPOB.

Ans. Yes I said so.

Q. Do you know the content of the container that Chimezie took delivery of.

Ans. No. I don't know.

Q. Are the contents of the container contraband.

Ans. I wouldn't know.

Q. How did you find out that the container was imported by IPOB.

Ans. He confessed to it.

Q. You keep saying my team my team, are you part of the team.

Ans. No. I am not part of the team.

Q. Would I be right to say the you as a person, you are not even sure that a transmitter was part of the items imported. Or at what point did you find out that the transmitter discovered was part of the products in the container imported by IPOB as you said.

Ans. As I said before, it was the first Defendant that confirmed that it is a transmitter when the picture was posted online.

Q. So, would I be right to say that you first found out it was a transmitter only the day you interviewed the first Defendant at your office.

Ans. Yes.

Q. Was the transmitter part of the items imported in the container that first Defendant took delivery of.

Ans. Yes.

END OF CROSS BY C. IGWE, Esq.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY IFERE, Esq begins ...

Q. How long have you worked in investigation department.

Ans. Four years.

Q. What formal training did you receive as investigator.

Ans. I have undergone some training in accordance with tradition of SSS.

Q. Pls be clear and specific. Would you beat your chest and say you are a good investigator.

Ans. I am a good investigator even though still undergoing training.

Q. You said you have nothing to say about the second Defendant Onwudiwe.

Ans. Yes. I have nothing to say about the second Defendant.

Q. You said you cautioned the first Defendant.

Ans. I did not say that. What I said that he should ask me what he does not understand.

Q. Is that your usual practice?

Ans. Yes.

Q. You stated from reading the Statement of first Defendant that he was being given money by IPOB to give to widows of slain IPOB demonstrators.

And. Yes.

Q. Am I right to put it to you that such group that gives money to widows is not an illegal group but a philanthropic group.

LABARAN Objected; the Court directed IFERE to reframe the Question ...

Q. In your opinion, would you say a group that donates money to poor widows is a bad or illegal group.

Ana. No answer.

Q. Let me put it this way, when First Defendant was arrested was IPOB an illegal group. Or when did IPOB become an illegal group.

And. No. IPOB became illegal group in 2017 but I don't remember the exact date. It is the purpose of the group that is bad ... ** Whereupon the Court interrupted the Witness and cautioned him that he has answered the Question and that the Conclusion he's attempting to draw is for the Court, not him **

END OF CROSS BY IFERE, Esq.

CROSS EXAMUNATION BY N. EJIOFOR, Esq begins ...

Q. I would be right to say that the only role you played in this case is to take down the statement of the first Defendant.

Ans. Yes.

Q. Are you aware that the first Defendant was granted bail by FHC Uyo.

Ans. I am not aware.

Q. Would I be right also to say that you don't know any single thing about Madubugwu.

Ans. Yes.

Q. Now, you asked the first Defendant what the purpose of IPOB is. Am I correct.

Ans. No.

Q. Let's go over what you did in your office. You told this court that first of all the first Defendant was brought to the head of your Department, and the head of your department handed the first Defendant over to you to go and take down his statement.

Ans. Yes.

Q. So, you didn't tell the first Defendant the reason why he was arrested.

Ans. Yes. Because I was not the one that arrested him.

Q. In the course of your interaction, you didn't tell him why he was arrested, rather the first Defendant was the one telling you why he was arrested.

Ans. I did not tell him why he was arrested.

Q. Did you have any Petition against the first Defendant or anything to show him that was the allegation against him.

Ans. No.

Q. Can you tell this court your rank.

Ans. I am a Senior Detective.

Q. What is your grade level in the civil service structure.

Ans. I am a level 12 officer.

Q. What is the model of the Transmitter.

Ans. I don't know.

Q. After taking statement of first Defendant, what did you do with him.

Ans. I took him back to our head of department.

Q. And what happened.

Ans. I went back to my office.

Q. What grade level makes a head of Department.

Ans. I don't know.

CROSS BY N. EJIOFOR, Esq. ENDS.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY M. OPARA, Esq BEGINS ...

Q. You told the court that you have a team of investigators.

Ans. Yes.

Q. To investigate what or who or just Bright Chimezie.

Ans. Yes. To investigate his case.

Q. How many investigators.

Ans. I don't know.

Q. As a human being, would you be happy to see these people sent to prison just to please your boss or your director or the AGF.

Ans. No. I believe in justice.

Q. Did you read the amended charges and the proof of evidence attached.

Ans. No.

Q. Did you read the statement of Mr David the fourth Defendant.

Ans. No.

Q. Are you aware that the FHC Uyo declared first Defendant detention illegal.

Ans. I am not aware.

END OF TESTIMONY.


Contact us: [email protected]