Abuja, Nigeria – Detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has formally requested the intervention of Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, in the reassignment of his case. This follows the recusal of Justice Binta Nyako, who had previously presided over his trial.
In a letter dated February 20, 2025, Kanu appealed to the CJN to direct Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, to assign his case to another judge with the necessary jurisdiction. His lead counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, revealed that Justice Nyako stepped down from the case on September 24, 2024, after Kanu raised concerns of alleged bias.
However, despite her withdrawal, the Chief Judge returned the case to her, directing her to continue presiding over the trial.
Legal Stand-Off and Adjournment
Kanu, who is facing a seven-count terrorism charge filed by the Federal Government, has rejected Justice Nyako’s continued handling of the case, maintaining that she voluntarily stepped down.
During the last court session on February 10, 2025, Kanu objected to Justice Nyako’s presence, stating that while he appeared out of respect for the hearing notice, he did not recognize her authority over the matter.
Following the confrontation, Justice Nyako indefinitely adjourned the case (sine die).
Request for Transfer of Trial
Kanu had previously requested that the case be transferred to another judge in Abuja or to a Federal High Court in the South-East, where the alleged offences were said to have taken place and where witnesses are based.
His lawyer, Ejimakor, argued that once a judge recuses themselves, they are legally barred from further proceedings on the matter.
“The principle of law is clear: once a judge recuses themselves, they are disqualified from further presiding over the case,” Ejimakor wrote in the letter to the CJN.
Concerns Over Judicial Process
Ejimakor accused the Chief Judge of ignoring legal precedent by reassigning the case to Justice Nyako, despite her prior recusal. He also pointed out that the Federal High Court received a request from the prosecution on December 5, 2024, asking for Kanu’s case to be re-listed before Justice Nyako.
The defence team opposed this request, citing the judge’s previous recusal and the Supreme Court’s ruling questioning her impartiality. However, the Chief Judge did not respond to these concerns nor assign the case to another judge.
Ejimakor warned that forcing a recused judge back onto a case could undermine public confidence 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.
Formal Complaint to NJC
In addition to seeking the CJN’s intervention, Kanu lodged a formal complaint against Justice Nyako with the National Judicial Council (NJC) on January 14, 2025. The complaint is still under review.
Ejimakor cited Supreme Court precedents, including Okoduwa v. State (1988) and Deduwa v. Okorodudu (1976), which emphasize that judges must step down when bias is alleged to ensure justice is not only done but seen to be done.
“This is not just a legal issue but a constitutional one. The right to a fair hearing under Section 36(1) of the Nigerian Constitution guarantees that our client must be heard by an impartial tribunal,” Ejimakor stated.
As legal proceedings remain stalled, all eyes are now on Chief Justice Kekere-Ekun to decide whether Kanu’s case will be reassigned or continue under Justice Nyako, despite her prior recusal.