The detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has rejected the Federal Government’s request to resume his trial, insisting that Justice Binta Nyako, the presiding judge, must withdraw from the case. Kanu expressed a lack of confidence in the judge’s ability to handle the matter impartially.
Kanu’s lead counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, announced his client’s position in a post on X (formerly Twitter) on Tuesday, reiterating that Justice Nyako had already recused herself during the last court session on September 24, 2024. “Our position is based on the fact that Justice Nyako entered and enrolled an order recusing herself. That order remains valid and binding,” Ejimakor stated.
Kanu is facing seven counts of treasonable felony and terrorism charges. He was initially arrested in 2015, fled the country in 2017, and was controversially re-arrested in Kenya in 2021 before being returned to Nigeria. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
During the September 2024 hearing, Justice Nyako agreed to step down from the case, citing Kanu’s explicit request for her withdrawal. She referred the case file to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court for reassignment. However, the Chief Judge returned the case to Justice Nyako, arguing that she was in the best position to conclude the matter, as two other judges had previously recused themselves, and she had been handling the case since 2015.
The Chief Judge also directed Kanu to file a formal motion with an affidavit if he wanted Justice Nyako to recuse herself officially. Despite this directive, the Federal Government, through its counsel, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), requested a new trial date, asserting that Justice Nyako’s reinstatement was legitimate.
Kanu, however, remains resolute in his demand for Justice Nyako’s withdrawal. During the September session, he personally addressed the judge, stating, “My Lord, I have no confidence in this court anymore. I ask you to recuse yourself because you did not abide by the decision of the Supreme Court. It is regrettable for this court to refuse to obey an order of the Supreme Court.”
Kanu’s objection stems from his belief that the trial court’s actions undermine the judge’s impartiality. Holding a document he claimed to be the Supreme Court’s judgment, he read excerpts that suggested the trial court’s conduct cast doubt on Justice Nyako’s fairness. “This is not personal. I am just fed up with a trial that contradicts constitutional provisions,” Kanu added.
The Federal Government’s legal team disagreed with Kanu’s objections, urging Justice Nyako to proceed with the case. Awomolo dismissed Kanu’s claims, describing them as “incompetent observations.” He argued, “My Lord, you should not recuse yourself on the basis of this mere observation. It has nothing to do with the Supreme Court.”
Also Read:
- Military Troops Eliminate Bandit Kingpin and Fighters in Zamfara
- Court Grants N10m Bail to Activist Accused of Threatening Tinubu’s Son, IGP
In response to Kanu’s insistence, Justice Nyako reaffirmed her decision to step aside from the case. “I hereby recuse myself and remit the case file back to the Chief Judge,” she declared during the session.
Kanu was first arrested in October 2015 after returning to Nigeria from the United Kingdom. He was detained at the Kuje correctional facility and granted bail in 2017 on health grounds. Following a military raid on his home, Kanu fled the country, eventually returning to the UK.
In 2021, Kanu was re-arrested in Kenya under controversial circumstances and repatriated to Nigeria. Since then, he has been held in the custody of the Department of State Services (DSS), with multiple applications for fresh bail denied by Justice Nyako.
Kanu’s legal team has emphasized that, as of September 2024, there is no case before Justice Nyako. Ejimakor accused the prosecution of attempting to mislead the court. “For the avoidance of doubt, the defendant no longer has any case to answer before Justice Binta Nyako,” he stated.
The standoff between Kanu, the Federal Government, and the judiciary has drawn significant attention, with many observers questioning the implications for justice and the rule of law in Nigeria.