IN THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT OF NIGERIA
IN THE KADUNA JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT KADUNA
CHARGE NO. FHC/KD/1C/2025
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
BETWEEN:
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA … COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT
AND
1. IBRAHIM MURKTAR … DEFENDANT/APPLICANT
2. MUHAMMADU BASHIR SAIDU … DEFENDANT
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
MOTION ON NOTICE
Brought pursuant to:
1. Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as
amended).
2. Section 176 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015.
3. The Inherent Jurisdiction and Powers of This Honourable Court.
........................................................................................................................
TAKE NOTICE that this Honourable Court will be moved on the ……….. day of
…………………….., 2025 at the Hour of 9 O’ Clock in the forenoon or so soon
thereafter as Counsel may be heard on behalf of the 1 st Defendant/Applicant
praying this Honourable Court for the following Order (s): -
1. An order of this Honorable court re-varying and or reviewing the bail conditions
of the Applicant in charge number: FHC/KD/1C/2025 to wit:
** For the condition for two sureties with certificates of occupancy and
subsequently one surety raising a Bank draft in the sum of N40, 000,000.00
(Forty Million Naira) to read two sureties who are public servants in the cadre
of Director with verification letters from their place(s) of work.
2. And for such further Order (s) as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make
in the circumstances of this case.
Dated this ………..day of ……………………………, 2025
_________________
1
Sekav Stephen Dzever, Esq.
Counsel to the Applicant
Actual Solicitors and Advocates,
7-9 Adamu Shittimu BY Television
GRA, Kaduna.
08139554008
[email protected]FOR SERVICE ON:
The Complainant/Respondent
C/O Their Counsel
Dr. Osuobeni Ekoi Akponimisingha
Asst. Chief Legal Officer
ICPC Headquarters
Plot 802, Constitutional Avenue
Central Business District, Abuja
0803-495-8709
For: Hon. Attorney General of the Federation
2
IN THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT OF NIGERIA
IN THE KADUNA JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT KADUNA
CHARGE NO. FHC/KD/1C/2025
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
BETWEEN:
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA … COMPALINANT/RESPONDENT
AND
1. IBRAHIM MURKTAR … DEFENDANT/APPLICANT
2. MUHAMMADU BASHIR SAIDU … DEFENDANT
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION
I, Sekav Stephen Dzever, male, adult, Nigerian citizen, Legal practitioner of 7-9
Adamu Chittimu Road, Television GRA, Kaduna do hereby make oath and state as
follows;
1. That I am the counsel representing the Applicant in this charge.
2. That by virtue of my position aforesaid, I am conversant with the facts
herein deposed.
3. That I have the consent of the Applicant to depose to this affidavit.
4. That the Applicant herein was charged to this honourable court in charge
number FHC/KD/1C/2025, as the 1st defendant.
5. That the Applicant was arraigned in this honourable court on the 21 st
January, 2025 and was granted bail by the court on the conditions which
are concurrent as follows:
a. That the Applicant present two sureties with Certificates of Occupancy
of properties in choice areas to be verified by the Kaduna Geographic
Information Service (KADGIS).
b. Affidavit of means for both sureties.
c. That the Applicant was ordered by this honourable court to be
remanded in prison custody until he perfects his bail.
6. That the Applicant met all the conditions required by providing two sureties
who presented two certificates of occupancy of properties in choice areas
in Kaduna, save that the certificates of occupancy provided by both sureties
could not be verified by KADGIS.
3
7. That verification of the certificates of occupancy is neither within the
Applicant’s power/control nor that of the sureties.
8. That the Applicant is still in prison custody because the certificates of
occupancy provided by two sureties he presented, namely Mohammed
Zaiyan Sani and Abdullahi Kabiru could not be verified by KADGIS.
9. That subsequently, on application through one of his counsel on 7/2/25,
the bail conditions earlier granted on 21 st January, 2025 were varied,
requiring raising and depositing a bank draft in the sum of N40,000,000.00
(forty Million Naira) with this Honourable Court.
10.That the Applicant told me, when I went to visit him at the Kaduna
Custodial
Centre which is along Independence Way, Kaduna on 13/2/25 by 1:00PM
and I verily believe him as follows:
a) That he is from a most impoverished family and cannot, given their
best efforts, afford the conditions for his bail as granted and varied
by this honourable court.
b) That he is a Civil Servant with the Kaduna State Government, on
Grade Level 10. His last promotion letter is annexed and marked
Exhibit A.
c) That as a Civil Servant on Grade Level 10, his salary is in the sum of
N91, 882.63 (Ninety One Thousand, Eight Hundred and Eighty Two
Naira, Sixty Three Kobo) monthly and he is indebted to tune of N705,
084.69 (Seven Hundred and Five Thousand, Eighty Four Naira, Sixty
Nine kobo). His pay advice slips for six months (August 2024 to
January 2025) evidencing his current financial status, inclusive of his
indebtedness is annexed and marked Exhibit B.
d) That been a civil servant and considering his humble family back
ground and circle of friends, he does not have anyone who can raise
a bank draft in the sum of N40,000,000.00 (forty Million Naira) to be
deposited with this Honourable Court, so that he can be released on
bail.
e) That if his bail condition is varied or reviewed as prayed, he can
afford the prayed conditions.
4
f) That his superiors in the Kaduna State Civil Service are willing to
stand as surety for him if his bail is varied as prayed.
11. That it is in the interest of justice that this application be granted, as its grant
will enable the Applicant easily have pre-trial meetings with his Lawyers to
prepare for his defence.
12. That the Respondent will not be prejudiced if this application is granted.
13. That I make this Oath in good faith conscientiously believing same to be
true and in accordance with the oaths Act, LFN. 2004 as amended.
..................................
Deponent
Sworn To At the Federal High Court Registry of Kaduna State
Dated This........... Day of ........................... 2025
BEFORE ME
COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS
5
IN THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT OF NIGERIA
IN THE KADUNA JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT KADUNA
CHARGE NO. FHC/KD/1C/2025
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
BETWEEN:
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA … COMPALINANT/RESPONDENT
AND
1. IBRAHIM MURKTAR … DEFENDANT/APPLICANT
2. MUHAMMADU BASHIR SAIDU … DEFENDANT
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
WRITTEN ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION ON NOTICE
1. INTRODUCTION:
1.1 The Applicant was charged to this honourable court in charge number:
FHC/KD/1C/2025 and bail was granted to him on some conditions which are
impossible and difficult for him to meet. The Applicant is still in prison
custody and has been there for over 3 weeks and hereby applies for
variation or review of his bail conditions, as contained on the face of the
motion paper.
2. ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION
2.1 Whether this honourable court can exercise his discretion in favour of the
applicant and vary or review the bail conditions of the Applicant?
3. LEGAL ARGUMENTS ON THE ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION
3.1 We rely on all the paragraphs of our affidavit in support and submit that by
the provisions of section 176 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act,
2015 with regard to requirement for bail variation, it is provided as
follows:
6
“Where at any time after a recognizance has been entered into, it appears
to the court that for any reason the surety or sureties are unsuitable, the
court may:
(a) issue a summons or warrant for the appearance of the principal; and
(b) on his coming to the court, order him to execute a fresh recognizance
with other surety or sureties, as the case may be.”
3.2 We humbly submit further that the power to vary or review bail
conditions is at the discretion of the court, which discretion can be
exercised judicially and judiciously. We further submit that the terms
and conditions upon which bail is granted are usually determined by
the circumstances of each case. Such terms and conditions the court
has held must not be excessive, impossible or onerous to meet. We
rely on the case of EYU V. THE STATE (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 78) 602.
3.3 We submit that presumption of law is in favour of the liberty of the
applicant as well as his innocence and the burden is on the prosecution to
show that the applicant is not one that should be released on bail with
liberal conditions. See DANBABA v. STATE (2000) 14 NWLR (Pt. 687) 396.
3.4 Having regard to the presumption of innocence of the Applicant until found
guilty under the law and the paramouncy of the liberty of a citizen, the
onus of showing that an applicant for bail does not deserve to be admitted
to bail is on the prosecution. See EYU v. STATE (supra).
3.5 It is trite law that where the conditions for bail imposed on a defendant by
the court are stringent and onerous to the extremes, it is as good as
denying him bail. In the circumstance, the onus will be on the prosecution
to show that the defendant deserves such conditions of bail. Where a
statute provides for stringent terms and conditions for a bailable offence,
there is the presumption that the defendant is guilty. See EYU v. STATE
(supra).
3.6 We submit that a defendant who jumps bail does so at his own peril.
Hence, the risk or strong likelihood that a defendant may jump bail should
not be used as a sole bulwark for denial of bail or basis for imposing
suffocating bail conditions against such a defendant person, until the
occurrence of such an untoward development. Therefore, if an offence is
7
readily bailable, it is both legal and logical that the conditions for bail
attached thereto must be such as will engender positive utilization of the
grant of the said bail to fullest extent whenever it is granted. See IBORI v.
F.R.N (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt.1127) 96
3.7 My Lord, relying on the affidavit in support of this application, the
terms and conditions of the bail granted to the applicant are
impossible for him to meet. To this effect, if not varied or reviewed, will
amount to the Applicant being remanded in prison custody indefinitely
which is also tantamount to denial of bail in a bailable offence. We also
refer this honourable court to the case of EYU V. THE STATE (supra).
CONCLUSION
We rely on our submissions above and most humbly urge the court to
grant our application.
We are most obliged.
Dated this ………..day of ……………………………, 2025
_________________
Sekav Stephen Dzever, Esq.
Counsel to the Applicant
Actual Solicitors and Advocates,
7-9 Adamu Shittimu BY Television
GRA, Kaduna.
08139554008
[email protected]FOR SERVICE ON:
The Complainant/Respondent
C/O Their Counsel
Dr. Osuobeni Ekoi Akponimisingha
Asst. Chief Legal Officer
ICPC Headquarters
Plot 802, Constitutional Avenue
Central Business District, Abuja
0803-495-8709
For: Hon. Attorney General of the Federation.
8
ADDRESS WITHIN KADUNA
ICPC OFFICE, WURNO ROAD, KADUNA.
