A Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday fixed a date for ruling on the bail applications filed by leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, and three others.

Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on Thursday, fixed December 1 for ruling on the bail applications filed by Nnamdi Kanu, and three others with whom he was charged with offences including treasonable felony and an act preparatory to act of terrorism.

According to Punch newspaper, the justice fixed the date for the ruling after lawyers to the four defendants argued their separate bail applications which were opposed by the prosecuting counsel, Shuaibu Labaran, on Thursday.

Others with whom the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Kanu was re-arraigned on November 8, were the National Coordinator of IPOB member, Chidiebere Onwudiwe, Benjamin Madubugwu and David Nwawuisi.

They were, in the 11 counts, including treasonable felony, managing an unlawful society, publication of defamatory matter, illegal possession of firearms and improper importation of goods, while Onwudiwe was specifically accused in one of the counts of an act preparatory to an act of terrorism.

All the counts were in connection with the accused persons’ alleged broadcasts on Radio Biafra and agitation for the secession from Nigeria, states in the South-East and South-South zones and other communities in Kogi and Benue states to constitute a Republic of Biafra.

The judge had on November 8, fixed Thursday for the hearing of the bail applications shortly after the accused pleaded not guilty to the amended 11 counts preferred against them by the Federal Government.

The four accused persons were represented by their separate lawyers, Ifeanyi Ejiofor (for Kanu); Mr. I. Adoga (for Onwudiwe); Mr. E. I Efeme (for Madubugwu) and Mr. Maxwell Okpara (for Nwaiwusi).

At the hearing on Thursday the lawyers urged the judge to dismiss the counter-affidavit filed in opposition to their clients’ applications, they added that the claim by the prosecution that their clients would constitute a threat to national security if released on bail pending the conclusion of their trial was false.

Efeme said, “The prosecution has the duties to give the particulars of how the defendants would constitute national security. These documents (provided by the prosecution) do not show such.”