The bail request made by the jailed accused terrorist negotiator Tukur Mamu was denied by Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court Abuja.
Justice Ekwo ruled that the application lacked substance and that the applicant had not presented enough evidence to persuade the court to use its powers in his favour.
The prosecution’s assertion that the defendant was likely to commit other crimes was not refuted, according to Justice Ekwo.
Read Also: Nigerian Students Issue One-Week Deadline To DSTV Over Reversal Of Price Hike
The court would have to take other factors into account before making a judgement, the judge said, even though the defendant claimed the State Security Service (SSS), where he was being confined, could not treat his health difficulties.
The judge added that where the custodian lacked the medical facility to take care of the medical condition of the defendant, but is capable of ensuring that the defendant has access to a medical facility suitable for his medical condition, the court would not grant the bail.
The court held that 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 application for bail.
The Judge further held that the defendant must understand that his medical care is at the expense of the state and must be reasonable in his demands.
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.
However, he claimed that the DSS had asserted that the hospital was both able and willing to assume responsibility for Mamu’s care and was adequately equipped to handle the defendant’s medical condition.
He said that the organisation committed to making sure Tukur Mamu had access to the daily medications he needed to manage his pre-existing medical condition as well as to the essential testing and treatments throughout the trial.
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.”
The judge noted that considering the nature of the offence on the charge sheet and the fact that Mamu did not rebut an allegation of breach of terms of bail, he was persuaded by the grounds given by the DSS for the court not to exercise discretion to grant bail as prayed by Mamu.
