Saturday, 2nd November 2024
To guardian.ng
Search

Court dismisses bail requests by five Rivers men charged with terrorism

By Ameh Ochojila, Abuja
06 February 2024   |   3:00 am
The five men from Rivers State charged with terrorism offences by the Inspector General of Police (IGP) have lost their battle for bail at the Federal High Court in Abuja.
Gavel

The five men from Rivers State charged with terrorism offences by the Inspector General of Police (IGP) have lost their battle for bail at the Federal High Court in Abuja.

Their bail applications, filed and argued by a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Lukman Fagbemi, was rejected and dismissed for lack of merit.

The five defendants are Chime Eguma Ezebalike, Prince Lukman Oladele, Kenneth Goodluck Kpasa, Osiga Donald and Ochueja Thankgod.

Justice Mobolaji Olajuwon, yesterday, refused them bail on the ground that they did not provide special circumstances to warrant their respective release from remand at the Kuje Prison in Abuja.

Delivering ruling on the bail applications, Olajuwon said the defendants, especially Ezebalike and Oladele failed to give cogent and verifiable evidence to back up their request for bail.

The Judge held that in their affidavits in support of request for bail deposed to by one Mariam Alawiye, an office assistant, she claimed to have obtained information and exhibits on the defendants from some people, but refused to share the identities of the people with the court.

To worsen the situation, the Judge also said the deponent did not make any documents or exhibits available to the court to support all her assertions in the affidavit evidence.

Justice Olajuwon explained that affidavit evidence must supply names of those who volunteered information about defendants in a criminal charge as stipulated by Section 115 of the Evidence Act.

The court held that rather than containing facts as required by law, the affidavit contained extraneous issues that are not relevant to persuade any court to grant bail.

The court disagreed with assertions by the deponent that the defendants would not jump bail, commit any other offence or interfere with witness and investigation, adding that claims were vague and hearsay, because the deponent did not establish or produce any evidence.

0 Comments