The leadership of
Intersociety has been totally
vindicated over its last night
(20th October 2015) statement
exposing flaws inherent in the
widely reported news of Citizen
Nnamdi Kanu’s conditional bail
and continued detention by the
Department of the State Security
Services (DSS). The information
about the conditional bail was
half-baked and reportorially
anomalous. For example, the
following questions were not
answered in the said media
report:Was Nnamdi Kanu
arraigned before a named Chief
Magistrate Court or charged
before a named Federal or FCT
High Court? If he was so
arraigned or charged, what
charges were preferred against
him? Who stood as prosecution
team, AGF or DSS legal
department? Were the charges
bailable if he was arraigned
before a Magistrate Court? Who
was the presiding authority,
Chief Magistrate or a Judge? Are
the charges against him, if any,
known to the 1999 Constitution
or its subsidiary criminal laws,
with their penalties clearly
defined in written law? What
date is the returned or
adjourned date? Was Citizen
Nnamdi Kanu represented by
any legal team and what are
the identities of members of his
legal team, if any?
However, at 7:15am this morning
(21st October 2015), Intersociety
received a mail from Barr Vincent
Egechukwu Obetta, who is
Counsel to detained Biafran self
determination activist;
acknowledging that other
teeming Nigerians shared same
sentiments and questions raised
in our referenced statement. He
answered our probing questions
as follows:
(1) That Citizen Nnamdi Kanu of
Radio Biafra & IPOB was
arraigned before the Abuja
Municipal Magistrate Court,
Wuse Zone 2; on 19th October
2015 and granted bail. (2) That
he was granted bail with
stringent conditions including
getting a civil servant of Grade
Level 16 that has a landed
property within Abuja
metropolis and in the sum of
N10million as his bail surety. (3)
That Citizen Nnamdi Kanu was
charged with following alleged
misdemeanor offenses:
Criminal Conspiracy, Managing&
Belonging to Unlawful Society
and Criminal Intimidation
contrary to Sections 97, 97b
and 397 of the Penal Code
(applicable in Northern
Nigeria). (4) That the matter
was adjourned to 18th of
November 2015 for trial. (5)
That processes to fulfill the
deliberate and stringent bail
conditions have since
commenced but could not be
completed before the close of
work yesterday (20-102015)
and would continue today
(21-10-2015).
We condemn in its totality the
stringent bail conditions
imposed upon the bail granted
to Citizen Nnamdi Kanu by the
Presiding Magistrate of the Abuja
Municipal Magistrate Court. It is
an elementary knowledge in law
and criminal justice system in
Nigeria that there are categories
of criminal offenses that can be
tried by the Magistrate Courts or
their equivalents and the High
Courts. They are simple offenses
with maximum of six months
imprisonment; misdemeanor
offenses with minimum of six
months (as case may be) and
maximum not exceeding three
years imprisonment; and
felonious offenses with three
years as minimum and capital
punishments (i.e. death penalty
or life imprisonment) as
maximum. In the trial jurisdiction
categorization, Magistrate Courts
are empowered with trial
competence in simple offenses
and misdemeanors and a
number of felonies.
The Magistrate Courts (with their
various classification) are
forbidden from prosecuting
certain categories of felonious
offenses such as treason,
treasonable felony, murder,
manslaughter, kidnapping,
armed robbery, sedition, rape,
terrorism, etc. Following the
foregoing, therefore, it is totally
condemnable for the Presiding
Magistrate to have handed down
such stringent bail conditions
over misdemeanor allegations
that are softly bailable. We
further hold that the Presiding
Magistrate is a parasitic and
arrange Magistrate possibly
remote-controlled by desperate
and primordial elements within
the Federal Executive Arm and its
security establishment so as to
keep Citizen Nnamdi Kanu in
perpetual confinement using
manipulated judicial process as
its escape route.
To attach such stringent bail
conditions in alleged offenses
that are clearly misdemeanor and
softly bailable is a clearly sign of
executive jittery and undeniably
persecutorial. To ask a civil
servant in Grade Level 16 with a
landed property within Abuja
metropolis to stand for Citizen
Nnamdi Kalu as a bail surety, is
very deliberate and another way
of applying Decree 2 of 1984,
which the present President
maximally applied then to mass-
jail Nigerians without limitations.
The possibility of getting a
serving civil servant of Grade
Level 16 working for the same
Federal Government may most
likely be a suicide mission; not to
talk of the attached condition
that such civil servant must have
a landed property within Abuja
metropolis.
Our questions are: What is the
cost of an empty plot of land
within Abuja metropolis? What
is the current market value or
worth of a landed property
within Abuja metropolis and
can it be afforded by a serving
civil servant of Grade Level 16
without bureaucratic theft?
How much is the official take
home monthly salary of a
Federal civil servant of Grade
Level 16 in Nigeria? Even if
obtained through the country’s
rampant bureaucratic
corruption, can such civil
servant boldly and dangerously
take the risk? Why must a N10
million bond surety be further
added in Citizen Nnamdi Kanu’s
bail conditions over
misdemeanor allegations that
are softly bailable with lighter
sentencing on conviction?
While we commend Citizen
Kanu’s lawyer (Barr Vincent
Egechukwu Obetta) for his
courage and boldness in
defending the detained self
determination activist as well as
his prompt response and
clarifications to our reservations
trailing his conditional bail and
continued detention; we also
advise that a return with a
motion should be made to the
same Abuja Municipal Magistrate
for immediate variation and
lowering of the harsh bail
conditions so given. Where the
possibility of meeting up with
bail conditions clearly becomes
unachievable both in practical
aspect and before the Magistrate
Court, an appeal should be
effected at the High Court for
such stringent bail conditions to
be quashed or lowered.

SOURCE: http://www.nigeriamasterweb.com/Masterweb/breakingnews-211015-true-position-nnamdi-kanu’s-conditional-bail-continued-detention-another