A Federal High Court, Abuja, on Wednesday, fixed March 22 for ruling on a motion filed by detained President, Miyetti Allah Kautal Hore, Bello Bodejo.

Justice Inyang Ekwo fixed the date after counsel for Bodejo, Mohammed Sheriff, and the Attorney-General of the Federation’s lawyer, Y.A. Imana, adopted their processes and presented their arguments for and against the motion.

Justice Ekwo had, on March 5, fixed today for the hearing of Mr Bodejo’s motion on notice, seeking his unconditional release from the Defence Intelligence Agency’s custody.

The judge fixed the date following the Federal Government’s failure to produce Mr Bodejo in court for arraignment after the expiration of the seven-day order directing the Federal Government to file charges against him.

Justice Ekwo had, on February 22, given the Federal Government seven days to file charges against the detained Bodejo.

The judge gave the order after the expiration of the earlier order granted the office of the AGF to remand Mr Bodejo for 15 days in the custody of DIA pending conclusion of his investigation.

The Federal Government, in a motion ex-parte marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/141/2024, had sought an order to remand Mr Bodejo, the sole respondent, in the NIA custody pending conclusion of investigation and arraignment in court.

The motion was dated and filed February 5 by M.B. Abubakar, Director, Public Prosecution of the Federation in the office of the AGF and Minister of Justice.

Mr Bodejo was said to have been arrested on January 23 in Malia, Nasarawa State and kept in custody.

His arrest was predicated on the alleged raising up of an armed militia to the detriment of the nation’s unity contrary to the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

According to the Federal Government, the suspect is being investigated for offences which constitute threat to national security under the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition Act, 2022 ).

Upon resumed hearing on Wednesday, Mr Sheriff told the court that the matter was slated for the hearing of their application and that subject to convenience of the court, he was ready to proceed.

Responding, Imana too said she was ready to proceed on behalf of the government.

“What were you ready about? What is the standing order of this court?” the judge asked Imana.

The Federal Government lawyer then explained that the court ordered the prosecution to file a charge against the defendant and that he should be arraigned.

“The charge has been filed yesterday my lord and we are waiting for the release of the defendant to us,” she added.

“Can you hear yourself? The court asked you to file a charge?

“Where is the evidence to show cause that you have complied with the order of court?” Justice Ekwo asked.

Sheriff, however, disagreed with Imana on her submission that a charge had been filed.

According to the defence counsel, the purported one count charge is not properly before the court as it violates Orders 3 and 4 of the Federal High Court Criminal Practice Direction, 2013.

“I have not seen the charge they filed. So let us not go there,” the judge replied Sheriff.

Meanwhile, while moving the motion, Sheriff said their application, dated February 26 was brought pursuant to relevant laws.

He said the application sought an order admittingMr  Bodejo to bail pending when he would be charged before a competent court.

He said the motion was supported by a 14-paragraph affidavit and they relied on all the averments.

Sheriff said in response to the prosecution’s counter affidavit, a further and better affidavit was filed on March 8, including a reply on points of law.

“We urge your lordship to magnanimously admit him to bail pending the arraignment before a court of competent jurisdiction,” he prayed.

On her part, Imana said the prosecution filed a four-paragraph counter affidavit dated March 6 in opposition to the bail plea.

She said they relied on all the averments and adopted it as their arguments in asking the court to dismiss Mr Bodejo’s plea for bail because the matter bordered on national security issues.

Justice Ekwo adjourned the matter until March 22 for ruling.

(NAN)