Nigeria Content Online

A federal high
court in Abuja yesterday ruled that there was no bail for the October 1
bomb blast suspects, saying that the offence which they are charged
with is a very serious one. In his ruling on the bail application
brought by Charles Okah and three others accused of terrorism and
treasonable felony by the Federal Government, Gabriel Kolawole, said
the offence which the accused persons are standing trial for, carries a
maximum sentence of death and life imprisonment in the second case,

“The offence
which they are charged with is serious in nature, is a very serious one
indeed,” he said Specifically he said he is unable to lay his hands on
any concrete fact or evidence that will convince him to grant the
accused bail. “I am not satisfied and convinced that if the accused are
granted bail, they will be available to attend their trial.” According
to him, violence and terrorism have never been a part of Nigeria’s
history and said the application for bail is hereby dismissed.

The court had, on
December 7, ordered that they be remanded in the custody of the State
Security Service (SSS) till the date fixed for the hearing of their
bail application, and after the bail application was refused, they were
taken back by the SSS.

Mr Kolawole
therefore ordered the SSS to ensure that they are given access to their
counsel and members of their family in order for them to have adequate
time and facilities to prepare their defense.

He also ordered
the prosecutor to within a period of 30 days from yesterday provide the
proof of evidence to the defense counsel in order for them to prepare
for their defense.

Not time for evidence

At the hearing of
the bail application, counsels to the 1st, 3rd and 4th accused persons,
Barristers Ogeneeo Otemu, Ugochukwu Ezekiel and Ibrahim Idris told the
court that there was no proof of evidence before the court and as such
the accused persons should be granted bail pending the trial.

But counsel to
the 2nd accused person, was not present in court and the Judge
expressed surprise at the absence of the lawyer whom he noted was
present at the last adjournment date. Similarly, he noted that the 2nd
accused person’s lawyer did not file his bail application and written
addresses as earlier ordered.

Also counsel to
the 3rd accused person, Mr Ezekiel, told the court that “no prima facie
case has been made out against the 3rd accused person” and that the
prosecution was unable to prove that his client has a criminal record
saying that he was never charged or convicted of any criminal
allegation.

Mr Idris, lawyer
to the 4th accused person, said that “having discovered that the bundle
of evidence are not admissible, the 4th accused has resolved not to
controvert them and that even in interlocutory proceedings, evidence
must pass admissibility test”.