The Kaduna State Government on Wednesday gave seven conditions to the embattled leader of the Islamic Movement in Nigeria, known as Shi’ite, Shiekh Ibraheem El-Zakzaky, and his wife, Zeenat, for their travel to India for medical treatment.
A Kaduna State High Court presided over by Justice Darius Khobo on Monday permitted the IMN leader and wife to travel to India for treatment following injuries they sustained during the IMN’s clash with the Nigerian Army on December 15, 2015.
The state government, which on Tuesday said it would appeal the ruling, however, said on Wednesday that it would not seek a stay of execution because it believed that people should have access to medical treatment.
According to the statement, the conditions to be met before the Shi’ite leader and his wife could travel included the confirmation of “his appointment with the hospital by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; an undertaking by the defendants to produce two prominent and reliable persons as sureties, one being a first-class chief/emir of national repute and the other a prominent person within Kaduna State, who shall undertake to produce the defendants whenever they are needed.”
The statement added,
“The Federal Government of Nigeria shall obtain from the Government of India an irrevocable guarantee that it will not entertain any application by the defendants/applicants or any third party seeking asylum under any guise.”
Meanwhile, Shi’ites on Wednesday accused the Nigeria Police Force of holding on to the corpses of 12 of its members who died in course of the July 22 bloody clash between the group and security agents in Abuja.
The couple’s lawyer, Femi Falana, SAN, however said he was not part of arrangement and lacked the backing of any law.
“A party in a case cannot dream of some weird ideas parade them as an agreement and impose same on a court and the other parties,” he said.
He noted that the Kaduna State Government had probably shelved the idea of appealing against the Monday’s ruling of the court on the grounds that “the Court of Appeal has ruled that you cannot stay the execution of orders of this nature.”