By Chinonso Alozie
Owerri- The Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, on Friday said they were no longer comfortable with the statement credited to President Muhammadu Buhari, which he made at Rwanda, regarding the issue of the detained IPOB leader, Nnamdi Kanu, that he could likely “jump bail.”
The IPOB, lead Council, Ifeanyi Ejiofor, stated this to newsmen in Owerri.
Ejiofor said it was worrisome that Buhari’s statement came a few days to the next court outing for Nnamdi Kanu, on 28 June 2022 at the Federal High Court in Abuja.
According to IPOB lawyer, “My attention has been drawn to calls and messages from foreign colleagues, friends well-wishers s to a profoundly shocking statement credited to the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Major General Muhammadu Buhari, at a bilateral meeting he held with the British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, on the sidelines of the 26th Common Wealth Heads of Government Meeting at Kigali, Rwanda.
“The statement acts as an insinuation by the President that the indefatigable leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, jumped bail the last time he was admitted to bail in Nigeria, and pretentiously asked whether anyone knows whether he would jump bail again.
“Every reasonable fair-minded person who knows the event that transpired at Afarukwu Ibeku, Umuahia, between the 10th and 14th of September, 2017, must be alarmed that the President of Nigeria can afford to make this type of statement. With profound respect, the statement is careless, mischievous, utterly false in content, pedestrian, and confirms once again, the entrenched hatred, odium, and contempt this infinitely divisive and partisan President has for people of the Igbo race.”
“For the President to make this kind of false and prejudicial statement about a week to the delivery of a reserved Ruling on a critical application to set aside the Order revoking the bail of ONYENDU Mazi Nnamdi KANU, brought on his behalf and pending at the Federal High Court, Abuja, speaks volume.
“Why was treasons d’ etre for the statement? Is it a veiled warning to the court? Does it preempt an already settled position? Will the outcome of this crucial application be merely a fait accompli? Is the statement a prognosis of what would transpire in court on the 28th of June, 2022? Is there a nexus between this statement and the ultimate decision that would eventuate on the application? The Ruling on the 28th of June, 2022, will confirm whether or not these musings are justified,” he said.