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 ongoing trial. Kanu’s appeal follows the recusal of Justice Binta Nyako from the case, a move that has led to significant legal contention.
In a letter dated February 20, 2025, obtained by journalists on Wednesday, Kanu requested that the CJN direct the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, to reassign his case to another judge with the necessary jurisdiction.
Kanu’s legal team, led by Aloy Ejimakor, explained that Justice Nyako had recused herself from the case on September 24, 2024, following allegations of bias raised by Kanu. However, despite her withdrawal, the Chief Judge had instructed that the case be returned to Justice Nyako, directing her to continue presiding over the trial. This move has sparked controversy, with Kanu vehemently rejecting her continued involvement in the case, arguing that she had voluntarily stepped down.
During the most recent court sitting on February 10, 2025, Kanu once again objected to Justice Nyako’s presence, asserting that he was in court solely out of respect for the hearing notice and did not recognize her authority. This disagreement led to the adjournment of the trial indefinitely (sine die).
Kanu had earlier requested the Chief Judge to transfer the case to either another judge in Abuja or to a court located in the South-East, where the alleged offences were said to have occurred and where witnesses are based.
In his letter to the CJN, Ejimakor emphasized that once a judge recuses themselves from a case, they are legally prohibited from further involvement in the matter. He criticized the Chief Judge’s decision to reassign the case back to Justice Nyako, arguing that this decision ignored the legal principle that a recused judge cannot continue to preside over the trial.
Ejimakor further highlighted that on December 5, 2024, the prosecution had submitted a request to the Federal High Court to have Kanu’s case re-listed before Justice Nyako. However, this request was opposed by the defense, citing the judge’s prior recusal and the Supreme Court’s questioning of her impartiality in previous rulings.
Despite the defense’s objections, Ejimakor stated that the Chief Judge neither addressed their concerns nor reassigned the case. He expressed concern that forcing a recused judge to return to the case could undermine public confidence in the judicial system. “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,” Ejimakor stated.
Ejimakor also disclosed that Kanu had filed a formal complaint against Justice Nyako with the National Judicial Council (NJC) on January 14, 2025, which is still pending.
Referencing judicial precedents, Ejimakor pointed to Supreme Court rulings such as in Okoduwa v. State (1988) and Deduwa v. Okorodudu (1976), which affirmed that judges must recuse themselves when allegations of bias are made. He stressed that the principle of fairness and impartiality is crucial in ensuring justice is both done and perceived to be done. He further asserted that the right to a fair hearing, as guaranteed under Section 36(1) of the Nigerian Constitution, mandates that Kanu must be tried by an impartial tribunal.
The outcome of Kanu’s legal battle remains uncertain, but his legal team continues to push for the reassignment of his case to ensure a fair trial.
