TheCable

A federal high court in Abuja has refused to grant bail to Tukur Mamu, publisher of Desert Herald.

Mamu is alleged to have received $120,000 as ransom payments on behalf of the Boko Haram terrorist group.

The monies were said to have been received from families of hostages kidnapped during the Abuja-Kaduna train attack.

He was arraigned on March 21 by the office of the attorney-general of the federation (AGF) on a 10-count charge bordering on terrorism.

However, Mamu pleaded not guilty to all the counts and denied having allegiance to the terrorists.

After arraignment, Sani Katu, Mamu’s lawyer, asked the court to grant bail to his client on health grounds.

But the application was opposed by the prosecution.

Ruling on the application on Thursday, Inyang Ekwo, presiding judge, held that the accused failed to counter some of the averments of the prosecution.

“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 said.

The judge held that although he took the health of the defendant into consideration, the DSS demonstrated good faith by taking Mamu to Arewa Specialist Hospital and Diagnostic Center, Jabi to receive treatment.

“There, adequate tests and treatments were administered at the expense of the complainant/applicant (DSS) and he was diagnosed with (moderate obstructive sleep apnea) and use of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) was recommended among other options at the hospital,” Ekwo said.

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

“In such situation where the custodian has demonstrated that it is capable of giving the defendant in its custody access to appropriate and adequate medical facility, it is for the court to exercise its supervisory power over the medical treatment of the defendant while in custody and in the course of trial.

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