The Department of State Services (DSS) has appealed the court docket ruling granting bail to 12 Yoruba Nation activist arrested on the residence of secessionist chief, Sunday Adeyemo, aka Sunday Igboho.
In a go well with numbered FHC/ABJ/647/2021, the appellant, the Director-General, Yusuf Bichi and the nation’s secret police he heads, in any other case often called the State Security Services (SSS) or DSS appealed to the Court of Appeal, Abuja, of “being dissatisfied with the decision of the Federal High Court, Abuja presided over by the Honourable Justice Obiora Atuegwu Egwuatu which decision was handed down in the ruling delivered on the 4th day of August, 2021 in Suit no: FHC/ABJ/CS/647/2021; Abdulateef Ademola Onaoluapo and 11 Ors v Director General, State Security Services.”
Egwuatu of the Federal High Court in Abuja had on August 4 granted bail to the 12 associates of Sunday Igboho.
Delivering the ruling on the applying filed by the 12 candidates earlier than the court docket, the presiding Judge stated, “It is clear that no charge has been brought against Sunday Igboho’s aides since their arrest.”
As such, the court docket held that detaining them with out charging them contravenes the provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act and their elementary rights.
Eight of the candidates, the first, third, 4th, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh candidates, have been granted bail within the sum of N5 million every in like sum and to provide a surety resident in Abuja.
The remaining 4 candidates, the 2nd, fifth, sixth, and twelfth candidates, have been granted bail within the sum of N10 million every with two sureties in like sum, who should even be resident in Abuja.
However, in keeping with a replica of the appellate go well with obtained by SaharaReporters on Sunday, Bichi and the DSS “do hereby appeal to the Court of Appeal upon the grounds set out in paragraph 3 and will at the hearing of the appeal seek the relief(s) set out in paragraph 4.
“And the Appellant further states that the names and addresses of the persons directly affected by the appeal are those set out in paragraph 5.”
It added that a part of the choice of the court docket complained of is the “part of the decision relating to the grant of bail to the 2nd, 5th, 6th and 12th Applicants, Respondents.”
The names of the 12 aides are Abdullateef Ofegbade, Amudat Habibat Babatunde, aka Lady Ok, Tajudeen Irinloye, Diekola Jubril Ademola, Abideen Shittu, Jamiu Noah Oyetunji, Ayobami Donald, Uthman Opeyemi Adelabu, Olakinle Oluwapelumi, Raji Kazeem, Taiwo Opeyemi Tajudeen, and Bamidele Sunday.
The operatives of the DSS raided Igboho’s home in Ibadan, the Oyo State capital on July 1, and arrested 12 of his aides who have been illegally detained earlier than the victims challenged the detention and abuse of their rights in court docket.
They have been later granted bail after spending 34 days in detention, although on stringent situations.
The DSS, nonetheless, opposed their bail as seen within the five-page enchantment go well with dated thirteenth August, 2021, stating three grounds of enchantment.
The DSS filed the enchantment by way of its authorized representatives who conprising I. Awo, I. Onotu and U. Batife and O. A. Adelayo.
The DSS, in a part of its grounds partly said that, “The Learned Trial Judge erred in law and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice when the Honourable Court held that the facts raised in the oral response to the oral bail application of the 2nd, 5th, 6th, and 12th Respondents were not grounded in Appellants Affidavit, thereby denying the Appellants fair hearing.
“The Learned Trial Judge erred in law and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice when the Honourable Court failed to order parties to file written addresses or affidavits when contentious issues were raised by Appellants.
“The Learned Trial Judge erred in law when he held that Section 162 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) which set out the circumstances wherein bail should be refused to Respondents only applies where there is a valid charge before the Court.”
Identifying a few of what it described as ‘Particulars of Error’, the DSS said, “The Appellants opposed the grant of bail to 2nd, 5th, 6th and 12th Respondents and raised several substantial disputes as to facts why these set of Respondents should not be granted bail.
“The Respondents did not file a written bail application to enable the Appellants file a counter affidavit wherein those facts raised could be deposed to.”
In the Court of Appeal by Sahara Reporters on Scribd