Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court in Abuja has recused herself from the Nigerian government’s treason and terrorism-related case against the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, which has been ongoing since 2015.
Her withdrawal on Tuesday was prompted by a disruptive request from Kanu during the court’s scheduled trial commencement.
The Nigerian had accused Kanu of broadcasting threats across Nigeria, warning that anyone who flouted a sit-at-home order in the southeast would face consequences, and inciting insurrection against the government.
The government claimed that due to Kanu’s threats, banks, schools, markets, shopping malls, and petrol stations in the southeast have remained shut. Kanu denied these allegations, setting the stage for the trial.
At the hearing’s continuation, the federal government’s attorney, Adegboyega Awomolo SAN, requested the trial to begin. In response, Kanu’s lawyer, Alloy Ejimakor, sought an adjournment, citing two pending appeals questioning the court’s jurisdiction.
Awomolo countered that a criminal trial should not be delayed due to pending appeals, suggesting the defense file for a stay of proceedings at the appellate court. The judge noted that the case should not be postponed, stating she would not entertain any applications until the trial concluded.
Ejimakor maintained that proceeding with the trial was inappropriate given his lack of preparation for his client, pointing out that court orders for Kanu’s access to legal preparation had been ignored.
The judge instructed that a prosecution witness be called, allowing Kanu’s lawyers to confer with him and cross-examine him the following day. In a surprising turn, Kanu stood up and confronted his lawyer, insisting he sit down. He argued that the Supreme Court had ruled his fundamental rights must not be violated by the detaining authority, particularly regarding access to legal counsel. “I will not subject myself to this court,” Kanu declared, requesting the judge’s recusal.
Awomolo argued that the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling regarding Kanu required the court to proceed with the trial, stating that Kanu’s claims contradicted the verdict. “This is clearly an incompetent and audacious observation,” he added.
The judge remarked that she found nothing in the Supreme Court’s ruling supporting Kanu’s claims and expressed surprise at his outburst toward his counsel. “I have already recused myself from this case and will refer the file to the Chief Judge for further action,” Judge Nyako announced, indicating she could not continue a trial where the defendant lacked confidence in her.
Awomolo opposed the motion for the judge to recuse herself, but Nyako affirmed her decision, citing Kanu’s disruption of the proceedings. “I hereby recuse myself and refer the case to the Chief Judge,” she stated. Awomolo expressed gratitude to the judge while lamenting the unfortunate turn of events.
Background
It will be recalled that Kanu was first arrested in Lagos on October 14, 2015, upon his return to the country from the United Kingdom, UK.
Justice Nyako had on April 25, 2017, granted him bail on health grounds, after he had spent about 18 months in detention.
Upon the perfection of the bail conditions, he was released from Kuje prison on April 28, 2017.
However, midway into the trial, the IPOB leader escaped from the country after soldiers invaded his country home at Afara Ukwu Ibeku in Umuahia, Abia State, an operation that led to the death of some of his followers.
Kanu was later re-arrested in Kenya on June 19, 2021 and extraordinarily renditioned back to the country by security agents on June 27, 2021.
Following the development, the trial court, on June 29, 2021, remanded him in custody of DSS, where he remained till date.
On April 8, 2022, the court struck out eight out of the 15-count charges that FG preferred against him on the premise that they lacked substance.
Likewise, the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal, on October 13, 2022, ordered Kanu’s immediate release from detention even as it quashed the charge against him.
Dissatisfied with the decision, FG took the matter before the Supreme Court, even as it persuaded the appellate court to suspend the execution of the judgement, pending the determination of its appeal.
YOU MAY ALSO READ: Zimbabwean retailers warn of potential store closures over overvalued official exchange rate