Binta Nyako, judge of a federal high court in Abuja, has adjourned the trial of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), indefinitely.
Nyako adjourned the suit on Monday following Kanu’s insistence that the judge cannot preside over his case since she had recused herself.
Justice Binta Nyako of a federal high court sitting in Abuja has adjourned the trial of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), indefinitely.
The judge adjourned the suit on Monday following Kanu’s insistence that the judge cannot preside over his case since she had recused herself.
The detained IPOB leader challenged the jurisdiction of his alleged terrorism case when he re-appeared before Justice Binta Nyako for the resumed hearing of his protracted case.
Despite Kanu’s insistence that Justice Nyako has no jurisdiction over his case, the judge adjourned the matter indefinitely.
Kanu was brought into Nigeria in June 2021 and has since been detained and tried for alleged terrorism. His trial was stalled after Justice Nyako recused herself from the case following an oral application by the defendant on September 24, 2024.
Despite Kanu’s insistence that Justice Nyako has no jurisdiction over his case, the judge adjourned the matter indefinitely.
The IPOB leader had directly told the judge that he no longer have confidence in her handling of his trial.
Nnamdi Kanu's Lawyer Talks About Justice Binta Nyako
Meanwhile Kanu's lawyer has given reasons why Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court, Abuja, is no longer eligible to conduct the alleged terrorism trial against Mazi Nnamdi Kanu because she consented to her recusal request made by Kanu on September 24, 2024.
Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, had on the day announced that he had lost confidence in Justice Nyako, and demanded the change of his trial judge, a demand Nyako consented to.
Kanu appeared before the court today after being summoned, upon which he reinstated his position that he would not be tried by Nyako, alleging bias. During Monday’s appearance, Nyako had adjourned the matter sine die.
Kanu’s lead counsel, Barr Aloy Ejimakor, clarified that the process by which Justice Murtala-Nyako exited from the case as the trial judge was a ‘judicial event’, as it emanated from the court order she made on 24th September 2024 where she “graciously consented to the recusal”.
Quoting Ejimakor, “The said order is extant and subsisting and was never appealed. It remains valid in all ramifications, such that strains the legality of the hearing conducted before the same judge today, 10th February.
“His Lordship cannot review, reopen and revisit the matter of her recusal because she no longer possesses the jurisdiction and she has become function officio.”
Citing Sanusi v. Ayoola (1992) 11/12 SCNJ 142; (1992) LPELR- 3009 (SC), among others, Ejimakor asserted that, “We have been informed by our client (Mazi Nnamdi Kanu) and we have obtained a copy thereof that he has initiated a petition or a complainant bordering on judicial misconduct against Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako. This alone, without more, is enough to oust justice from subjecting Mazi Kanu to any trial before her court.”
He stated that the petition against Justice Nyako was filed on 14th January 2025 and it is pending, adding that the reasons Kanu had to recuse Justice Nyako included: “That in June 2021, the same judge conducted a hearing by which Mazi Kanu (an awaiting-trial) was ordered remanded without notice to, and the presence of his former counsel at the hearing”.
The release read, “That was a grave constitutional error that turned highly prejudicial against Mazi Kanu. Second, Kanu was ordered detained in DSS cell instead of a prison facility as the law contemplates. The excuse then was that every penitentiary in Nigeria is porous or pathetically low-security. This excuse suggested a judicial state of mind.
“Third, when the DSS detention posed grave risks to Mazi Kanu’s constitutional right to fair hearing and to counsel, the judge summarily refused his application for transfer to prison or other less restrictive facility and instead ordered an accelerated trial. That’s manifest injustice.”
Another, according to Ejimakor, is that when the Supreme Court ruled against Mazi Kanu’s bail revocation, Justice Nyako, who had revoked his bail, refused to reinstate the bail, adding that, “That’s an egregious violation of the constitution and the doctrine of stare decisis.”
He added, “The Supreme Court had held that, by revoking Mazi Kanu’s bail, the judge’s impartiality has become suspect. In the face of this damning indictment from the apex court, it would amount to a dangerous gamble for Kanu to ignore this and take his chances in a trial that has six capital offences arrayed against him.
“Despite the enormous risks to Mazi Kanu’s right to fair trial posed by the strict conditions of his detention at the DSS and the illegality of the charges, the judge summarily refused our meritorious application to adjourn the trial until the exhaustion our appeal challenging her jurisdiction to try the case. For Mazi Kanu, this is the last straw that broke the camel’s back.”
0 Comments