- Nnamdi Kanu called on the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Kudirat Kekere-Ekun to intervene in his terrorism trial after Justice Nyako's recusal, citing concerns over bias in the proceedings
- Kanu’s legal team argued that Nyako’s recusal in September 2024 should have led to the case being reassigned, but the Chief Judge ignored their objections
- Kanu’s lawyer, Aloy Ejimakor, warned that allowing a recused judge to resume the case could undermine public trust in the judiciary and violate Kanu’s constitutional rights
The detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has called on the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, to intervene in the handling of his terrorism case, following the recusal of Justice Binta Nyako from the trial.
In a letter dated February 20, 2025, Kanu appealed to the CJN to direct the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, to reassign his case to another judge with the necessary jurisdiction.
This appeal comes after Kanu’s legal team expressed dissatisfaction with the continued handling of the case by Justice Nyako, despite her voluntary recusal in September 2024.
Kanu’s lead counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, explained that Justice Nyako had recused herself from the case following Kanu's request, citing concerns of alleged bias.
However, despite this, the Chief Judge returned the case to Nyako, directing her to continue presiding over the trial, which Kanu and his legal team rejected.
Kanu, who faces a seven-count terrorism charge filed by the Federal Government, maintained that Justice Nyako had effectively stepped down from the case, and as such, should not be allowed to resume presiding over the matter.
This objection was reiterated during the last court sitting on February 10, 2025, when Kanu stated he only appeared in court out of respect for the hearing notice but did not recognise Nyako's authority to oversee the proceedings.
Following this standoff, Justice Nyako adjourned the trial indefinitely. Kanu had earlier requested that his case be transferred either to another judge in Abuja or to a court in the South-East, where the alleged offences were said to have occurred and where key witnesses are located.
In his letter to the CJN, Ejimakor pointed out that once a judge recuses themselves, they are legally barred from further involvement in the case.
"The principle of law is clear: once a judge recuses themselves, they are disqualified from further presiding over the case," the letter read.
Ejimakor also criticised the Chief Judge for disregarding the legal position surrounding Justice Nyako’s recusal.
He revealed that, despite the recusal being on record, the Federal High Court had received a request from the prosecution on December 5, 2024, to have the case re-listed before Justice Nyako.
This request was met with opposition from Kanu’s legal team, who cited the judge’s recusal and referenced a previous Supreme Court ruling that had questioned her impartiality.
Despite these concerns, Ejimakor noted that the Chief Judge had not responded to their objections or reassigned the case to another judge.
Ejimakor stressed that allowing a recused judge to resume handling a case could seriously damage public trust in the judiciary.
"A judge’s unilateral return to a case after recusal will undoubtedly create a public perception of partiality, eroding the much-cherished trust in the courts," he said.
He urged the CJN to use her administrative powers to ensure Kanu’s case is transferred to a different judge, either in Abuja or in the South-East division of the Federal High Court.
Additionally, Ejimakor revealed that Kanu had lodged a formal complaint against Justice Nyako with the National Judicial Council (NJC) on January 14, 2025, which is still pending.
Citing judicial precedents, Ejimakor referred to the Supreme Court rulings in Okoduwa v. State (1988) and Deduwa v. Okorodudu (1976), which emphasised the importance of judges stepping down when allegations of bias arise.
He argued that the fundamental right to a fair hearing, as guaranteed under Section 36(1) of the Nigerian Constitution, mandates that Kanu’s case be heard by an impartial tribunal.
“This is not just a legal issue but a constitutional one. The right to a fair hearing guarantees that our client must be heard by an impartial tribunal,” Ejimakor concluded.
Kanu’s legal team would hope that their appeal catches Kekere-Ekun’s attention.
Rep visits Nnamdi Kanu in detention, resolves access restriction to his lawyers
Meanwhile, TheRadar earlier reported that the House of Reps member Obi Aguocha visited Nnamdi Kanu in detention, successfully resolving restrictions on his legal team's access to the IPOB leader.
The visit aimed to find a political solution to Kanu’s continued detention, addressing legal and health concerns raised by his lawyers.
