Court refuses Maina’s request of reviewing bail conditions he was granted

Chairman of the defunct Pension Reform Task Team (PRTT), Abdulrasheed Maina's request for a review of the conditions attached to the bail he was granted on November 26, 2019 has been struck out by a federal high court.

Maina who is being tried on money laundering related charges, had made the request after being unable to meet his bail conditions.



Recall that the former PRTT Chairman was granted a N1 billion bail after being arraigned before Justice Okon Abang. Maina who was ordered to deposit all his travel passports, including American, Nigerian and diplomatic passports, was also asked to provide sureties with properties worth N500m naira each. Justice Okon Abang directed that the sureties must have landed properties fully developed in Asokoro or Maitama in Abuja and must be serving senators with no criminal case in court.



Ruling on Maina's request on Wednesday April 29, Justice Okon Abang said the request to revoke Maina’s bail was premature because he believes that investigation of the allegations has not been concluded, since Maina claimed he has not been questioned by any security agency on the issue.



The federal high court judge also faulted the review application filed by the former PRTT boss, and further described it as "unmeritorious". Justice Abang stated that it was wrong for the defendant to dictate the bail conditions he wanted.



He said;



“The 1st defendant failed to place materials before the court with, convincing reasons, to show that there exist exceptional circumstances to warrant the variation of the conditions of the bail earlier varied.

“The application filed by the 1st defendant lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed."



EFCC’s request for more security operatives to be placed around Maina who is currently being held at the Kuje correctional centre in Abuja, was also rejected by the judge. He stated that the security agencies and the prosecuting agency controlled by the Executive arm of government, does not need a court order to provide additional security if there is need for that.