A public affairs analyst, Carl Umegboro has faulted the claims
that Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu of the Federal High Court in Abuja exhibited
bias in granting the bail application filed by Omoyele Sowore through
his lawyer, Mr. Femi Falana (SAN) on his arraignment by the federal
government for treasonable felony, City News reports.
Umegboro, an associate, Chartered Institute of Arbitrators
stated this in a statement to newsmen on Monday in Abuja in reaction to
the allegations of bias against the trial judge, Hon. Justice Ojukwu.
He however maintained that Sowore remains innocent on the
charges until the prosecution is able to prove him guilty by
fair-hearing which is his fundamental human right as provided in Section
36 of the 1999 Constitution, Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).
The analyst stated that the charges which Sowore was arraigned
did not have the same weight with mere corrupt practices, stealing or
diversion of public funds knowing that a threat of revolution tantamount
to a treasonable felony.
Umegboro explained that the court wouldn’t have sensibly granted bail to an accused person who claimed to be mobilizing people to take over a constituted government forcefully without stringent conditions attached unlike suspects for other offences.
He added that the major factor the court is required to consider
before granting bail to suspects on corrupt practices is jumping of
bail while for sedition or other offences against the state like threats
of revolution, the court will not only consider jumping of bail but
also preventing the alleged threats from being carried out, hence
stringent conditions may be unavoidable.
Umegboro lamented that the manner in which the judiciary is
being criticized most times without justified reasons especially when
some inane expectations are not met is dangerous to the judiciary and
the society at large adding that unfair criticisms and blackmails to
courts are equally a means of strategically pocketing the courts thereby
destroying judicial independence.
“Pocketing of the judiciary is not only when the executive
influences the mind of the court but also when unnecessary pressures are
put on the court by people towards thwarting the course of justice in a
particular direction”.
“Clearly, the offences of corrupt practices
and treasonable felony don’t carry the same weight in law as in
consideration of bail application on the former, jumping of bail is the
major factor while for treasonable felony, prevention of the alleged
threats or act will be paramount in addition of jumping bail.
Sadly, it is gradually becoming a norm that any moment a court
verdict didn’t favour a party irrespective of the merit of the judgment,
it would be tagged ‘judicial bias and perversion of justice’ but where
it favoured the party, it is the ‘rule of law’ and victory for
democracy”, Umegboro said.
