Court dismisses terrorist negotiator, Mamu’s bail application

220

The Federal High Court in Abuja has denied the bail application submitted by  alleged terrorist negotiator, Tukur Mamu, who was detained and remanded in jail by the State Security Services.

The Court said it was persuaded by a counter-affidavit the Department of State Services submitted to oppose Mamu’s request for bail in a judgement read by trial Justice Inyang Ekwo.

Among other things, Justice Ekwo ruled that Mamu’s motion lacked merit and that the petitioner had not presented enough evidence to persuade the court to exercise its discretion in his favour.

He observed that the defendant had not refuted the Federal Government’s allegations that he was a flight risk and likely to conduct more crimes.

He said, “Generally, the law is that where averments in a counter affidavit are not countered, they are accepted to be true and correct and they require no further elaboration. This is because facts admitted need no further proof.”

The judge held that although the defendant claimed the SSS custody, where he was being kept, could not address his health challenges, the court would have to consider other issues before taking a decision.

“Again, the court will weigh the evidence to see whether the custodians allow the applicant requisite access to medical treatment peculiar to his medical condition.

“The court will also take into account the attitude of the defendant/applicant to the medical facility provided to him by his custodian.

“Where there is a medical facility by the custodian of the defendant which can adequately take care of the medical condition of the defendant, then the application for bail on medical grounds will not be countenanced by the court,” he said.

“Now, where the defendant willfully rejects the medical facility given to him by his custodian merely for the fact that such facility is not up to the standard that he expects, then, he has no good medical grounds for bail application.

“A defendant who is in the custody of the state or agency of the state like the complainant/respondent must understand that his medical care is at the expense of the state and must be reasonable in his demands,” he said.

The judge noted that evidence before the court revealed that it was after the defendant declined the DSS medical services that he was taken to Arewa Specialist Hospital and Diagnostic Center, Jabi by the security outfit.

“There adequate tests and treatments were administered at the expense of the complainant/applicant and he was diagnosed with Moderate Obstructive Sleep Apnea and the use of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure was recommended, among other options, at the hospital, ” the judge said.

He said the DSS, however, averred that the hospital was sufficiently capable of handling the medical condition of the defendant and that it was able and willing to take responsibility for the treatment of Tukur Mamu.

“A defendant who is in the custody of the state or agency of the state like the complainant/respondent must understand that his medical care is at the expense of the state and must be reasonable in his demands,” Justice Ekwo added.

The trial judge also ruled that Mamu failed to refute the claim that he had previously broken the terms of an administrative release that the DSS had granted him.

He claimed that the DSS’s arguments convinced him that the court should not use its discretion to accept Tukur Mamu’s request for bail.

The judge held that in exercising his discretion on the application for bail on allegations contained in a charge sheet punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding three years, “the discretion of the court to grant bail will not be exercised in favour of the defendant where any of the conditions in Section 162 of the ACJA 2015 Is established.”

“With this undertaking, this application for bail on medical grounds does not hold water.

“This application is consequently refused and Is hereby struck out. This is the order of this court.”

Tukur Mamu was arraigned on March 21 by the Federal Government on a 10-count charge bordering on terrorism financing, aiding terrorist operations in the country among others.