The Federal Government, on Tuesday, alleged that the proscribed Indegeniuos People of Biafra, IPOB, were behind recent cache of arms that were intercepted in Lagos by the Nigeria Customs Service, NSC. FG, while justfying its decision to apply for the IPOB to be outlawed, told the Federal High Court in Abuja that its investigations revealed that members of the group imported arms, comprising of pump action rifles, from Turkey.
It said the deal was brokered by a Turkish national that allegedly visited the ‘missing’ leader of the IPOB, Mr. Nnamdi Kanu, shortly after he was released from detention. The Solicitor General of the Federation, Mr. Dayo Akpata who represented FG, urged the Acting Chief Judge of the high court, Justice Abdu Kafarati, to dismiss the motion IPOB filed to quash the proscription order.
It will be recalled that Custom operatives had between January and September this year, intercepted about four containers laden with arms. 1,100 pieces of pump action rifles that were recovered at the Tin Can port, Apapa, Lagos, on September 19, brought the total of such arms that were seized since January this year, to 2, 671.
Meantime, in a 23-paged counter-affidavit it filed in opposition to IPOB’s motion dated September 21, FG, told the court that the secessionist group “have been associated with violent activities”. It said: “Furthermore, the leader of the Respondent/Applicant, one Nnamdi Kanu has been openly advocating for armed struggle via his speeches, calling Nigeria a zoo, threatening that Nigeria will burn if he is arrested, etc.
The intent of the Respondent/Applicant from the onset is to cause confusion and plunge the country into crisis. “That Biafra is not a region in Nigeria and there are also no States known as Biafran States under the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended. “That in opposition to the depositions in paragraph 6 of the supporting affidavit, I am aware that the Respondent/Applicant’s activities have been targeted at causing a violent break up of Nigeria.
“That as a confirmation of the fact that the intentions of the Respondent/Applicant from the onset is to cause a violent breakdown of law and order in Nigeroa, Nnamdi Kanu openly solicited for arms to wage war against Nigeria at the World Igbo Congress held in California, USA in 2015.
“That a Turkish citizen, Abdulkadir Erkahraman, visited Nnamdi Kanu the leader of the Respondent/Applicant in Isiama Afara, Umuahia, Abia State sometimes in July 2017, and has been canvassing support for the secessionist agenda of the Respondent/Applicant. He also admonished ‘Biafrans to rise up and fight a good fight for freedom’.
“That the Nigerian Customs Service had on four occasions this year intercepted pump action rifles totaling 2,671 illegally imported into the country from Turkey”.
Meanwhile, the Federal High Court in Abuja, on Tuesday, ordered Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe, a Jewish High Priest, Emmanu El-Shalom Oka BenMadu, and an accountant, Tochukwu Uchendu, to appear before it on November 20 to explain the whereabouts of the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu.
The court maintained the trio who stood surety for the IPOB leader, must produce him for continuation of his trial, or face jail term/forfeiture of their bail bond. The order which was made by trial Justice Binta Nyako, followed Kanu’s absence in court to take his plea to an amended five-count treasonable felony charge the Federal Government preferred against him and four other pro-Biafra agitators, Chidiebere Onwudiwe, Benjamin Madubugwu, David Nwawuisi and Bright Chimezie.
Justice Nyako had in a ruling on April 25, released Kanu on bail after he had spent a year and seven months in detention, though the court okayed his co-defendants to remain in prison custody. To secure Kanu’s release, Abaribe who is representing Abia South Senatorial District, El-Shalom and Uchendu, on April 28, signed an undertaking to always ensure the presence of the defendant in court for his trial.
However, at the resumed sitting on the matter on Tuesday, government lawyer, Mr. Shuaibu Labaran, drew attention of the court to Kanu’s absence, even as he applied for a bench warrant to be issued against him. FG equally urged the court to summon Abaribe and the other sureties to show cause why they should not be committed to prison with their N100m bail bond forfeited.
In opposition to the application, Kanu’s lawyer, Mr. Ifeanyi Ejiofor, told the court that his client had been missing since September 14 when he said soldiers invaded the IPOB leader’s family compound at Afara-Ukwu village in Umuahia, Abia State. “I cannot tell my lord whether he is dead or alive because 28 people were killed at his house”, Ejiofor added.
He told the Judge that he has a pending suit that is asking the Nigerian Army to produce Kanu before the court either dead or alive. “As it stands today, I don’t know where my client is. They are in a better position to tell us where he is”.
At that juncture, Justice Nyako asked if any of the three sureties were present in court. In response, Abaribe’s lawyer, Ogechi Ogbonna, announced his appearance and informed the court that his client had not seen or heard from Kanu since September 11. Ogbonna told the court that his client was no longer willing to continue as Kanu’s surety and had filed a motion to be discharged.
Nevertheless, Justice Nyako said she would not entertain Abaribe’s application until he produced Kanu before the court. “No! He remains a surety until he produces the defendant. It is only when the 1st defendant is here that he can withdraw and the bail of the defendant revoked”, the judge insisted. The trial Judge said there were three option available to Abaribe in the matter. She said: “I will give you three different scenarios available here for your client. He should produce the defendant and apply to withdraw. “Or he could say I don’t know where the defendant is and I cannot produce him, take my bail bond. “The third scenario is he can say give me time to produce him. These are the only options for your client”.
Abaribe’s lawyer accepted the third option, saying his client would try to ascertain the whereabouts of the IPOB leader. In her ruling, Justice Nyako ordered the three sureties to appear before the court to show cause why bench warrant should not be issued against them. “The second surety, Abaribe, will only be recused when the defendant is produced or if he choses to forfeit the bail bond”, Justice Nyako held.
