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.

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.

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.

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).

He 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.