The Federal Government yesterday said that those
standing sureties for the leader of the proscribed
Indigenous People of Biafra IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu
risk imprisonment should he (Kanu) be absent at
the next trial date.
The Federal Government is prosecuting Kanu and
three others before the Federal High Court sitting
in Abuja on a five-count criminal charge bothering
on treasonable felony. The trial judge, Justice
Binta Nyako had on April 25, admitted Kanu to bail
but refused the three other defendants bail.
As part of the bail condition, Kanu was asked to
produce three sureties including a highly respected
Jewish leader, a highly placed Igbo person and a
respected person who resides and owns property in
Each of the surety was asked to sign a bond of
N100 million each. Meanwhile, counsel to Kanu,
Ifeanyi Ejiofor had last Tuesday raised the alarm
that his (Kanu) whereabout is not known since the
military invaded his house in Abia State. Ejiofor
had alleged that his client might have been killed.
However, speaking on the legal implication of
Kanu’s failure to attend court on the next
adjourned date, Special Assistant to President
Muhammadu Buhari, Chief Okoi Obono-Obla in an
exclusive chats with Sunday Telegraph in Abuja
noted that it is as clear as crystal that Kanu has
violated all the conditions prescribed by the court.
He said: “The Federal Government has already
filed a motion to set aside the bail of Kanu.
Following the military exercise carried out in
Umuahia, Abia State and the subsequent
proscription of IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu has not been
seen and may have gone underground.
“So it is not likely that he will appear in court on
the next adjourned day for fear of being arrested
by the police or security agencies. Kanu had
sureties that entered into recognizance or signed
bail bonds as ordered by the court that led to his
“What is a recognizance? In law, recognizance is a
security entered into before a court with a
condition to perform some act required by law; on
failure to perform that act a sum is forfeited.
“The position of the law as provided under Section
173 (1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice
Act, 2015, is that a defendant whom recognizance
was entered on his behalf and who is subsequently
released on bail is bound to appear before the
court at every time and place to which during the
course of the proceedings, the hearing may from
time to time be adjourned.
“The court also may issue a warrant of arrest
where a defendant (Kanu) bound by a recognizance
or bond fails to appear before a court or police
station. It follows that if Kanu fails to appear
before the Federal High Court on the next
adjourned date, the Judge will likely order a
warrant for his arrest.
“The implication of the failure of Kanu to appear in
court on the next adjourned date on those who
stood sureties for his recognizance is that his
recognizance shall be forfeited.
The court shall order his bond entered by his
sureties to pay the penalty or to show sufficient
cause why the penalty should not be paid.
“It follows that Kanu’s three sureties will be
ordered to pay N100 million each. Where sufficient
cause is not shown by the sureties or the persons
bound and the penalty is not paid, the court may
recover the penalty from the person bound or from
his estate if he is dead, in the manner laid down in
the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015
for the recovery of fine.
“However, where the penalty is not paid and cannot
be recovered in the manner laid down by the law,
the person bound shall be liable to imprisonment
for a term not exceeding six months,” he said.