Justice John Tsoho of the Federal High Court in
Abuja has declined to release the detained leader of the Indigenous
People of Biafra, IPOB, Mr. Nnamdi Kanu on bail pending his trial. In a
ruling Friday, the court also denied bail to two other pro-Biafra
agitators, Benjamin Madubugwu and David Nwawuisi, who are facing trial
with Kanu.
Justice Tsoho maintained that the charge against the defendants “is a grave one that will attract severe punishment upon conviction”. The court noted that the offence that was allegedly committed by the defendants, which borders on treasonable felony, attracts life imprisonment. It held that the right to personal liberty of any individual takes secondary place once the issue of national security is involved.
Besides, Justice Tsoho observed that the defendants had in an affidavit they deposed in support of their bail application, insisted that they have a right to agitate for self determination. “The situation as perceived by this court is that there is conflict of interest between the applicants who insist that they have a right to agitate and the respondent (Federal Government) which argues that it has the responsibility to maintain peace and order.
“Personal liberty of an individual within the contemplation of Section 35 of the 1999 Constitution is a qualified right that is not absolute. It can be curtailed in other to prevent a person from committing further offence.”
Source: Vanguardngr
Justice Tsoho maintained that the charge against the defendants “is a grave one that will attract severe punishment upon conviction”. The court noted that the offence that was allegedly committed by the defendants, which borders on treasonable felony, attracts life imprisonment. It held that the right to personal liberty of any individual takes secondary place once the issue of national security is involved.
Besides, Justice Tsoho observed that the defendants had in an affidavit they deposed in support of their bail application, insisted that they have a right to agitate for self determination. “The situation as perceived by this court is that there is conflict of interest between the applicants who insist that they have a right to agitate and the respondent (Federal Government) which argues that it has the responsibility to maintain peace and order.
“Personal liberty of an individual within the contemplation of Section 35 of the 1999 Constitution is a qualified right that is not absolute. It can be curtailed in other to prevent a person from committing further offence.”
Source: Vanguardngr
EmotionEmoticon