Kanu Rejects FG’s Request For Trial Resumption, Insists On Change Of Judge
Nnamdi Kanu, a leader of the indigenous people of Biafra and currently detained, has opposed the Federal Government’s request for a resumption of his trial.
Kanu’s lead counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, revealed in a post on X on Tuesday.
His client Kanu claimed that the Federal Government had rejected the trial’s request to reopen it and that Justice Binta Nyako, the trial judge, should have ordered her to recuse herself.
Kanu’s lawyer, Ejimakor argued that Justice Nyako’s decision to recuse herself was still valid and binding.
Also, read: DHQ confirms that six soldiers were killed by ISWAP terrorists during a raid in Borno.
According to Justice Nyako, who entered and enrolled an order recusing herself on September 24, 2024, and that order has continued to exist and continue to exist, we hold that position. It has not been set aside by any competent court,” Ejimakor stated.
He further claimed that Kanu no longer has a case before Justice Nyako, and that the prosecution was trying to deceive the court.
“For the avoidance of doubt, as of September 24, 2024, the defendant no longer has any case to answer before Justice Binta Nyako,” Ejimakor said.
Kanu, who is facing terrorism and treason charges, has entered a not-guilty plea.
After returning from the United Kingdom to Nigeria on October 14, 2015, he was first detained at the Kuje correctional facility, where he was detained for the first time. In 2017, he was granted bail on health grounds.
Kanu later eluded the country and returned home after the military raided his home. He was later detained in Kenya in 2011 and later detained and brought back to Nigeria.
He was detained in the Department of State Services’ custody until 2021 when he was again apprehended in Kenya.
At the last court session on September 24, 2024, Kanu requested that Justice Nyako, recuse herself.
He cited her handling of the case as lacking in confidence.
Justice Nyako consented to her recusal and forwarded the case to the Federal High Court’s Chief Judge for rescheduling.
However, the Chief Judge returned the case to Justice Nyako, stating that two other judges had previously recused themselves, and Justice Nyako, having handled the matter since 2015, was best positioned to conclude it.
The Chief Judge instructed that if Kanu still wanted Justice Nyako to step aside, he must file a formal motion with an affidavit detailing his reasons, serve it on the prosecution, and await Justice Nyako’s determination.
Despite this directive, the Federal Government’s counsel, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), requested a new trial date in a December 5, 2024, letter addressed to the Deputy Chief Registrar of the Federal High Court.
According to Awomolo, Justice Nyako was reinstated as the trial judge in the Chief Judge’s decision.
Demanding Justice Nyako’s withdrawal from his case at the previous proceedings, Kanu, who shouted down his lawyer and spoke for himself, maintained that he did not trust the judge to be impartial.
Justice Nyako rejected Kanu’s numerous requests for new bail.
My Lord, I have no confidence in this court any longer, and I ask you to recuse yourself because you did not follow the Supreme Court’s order.
It is regrettable that the Supreme Court has refused to follow a court order, but I can understand why the DSS did that. Please recuse yourself from this situation, I ask. ”
However, the prosecution counsel, Awomolo demanded that Justice Nyako take into account Kanu’s claim that he disobeyed a Supreme Court order and move forward with the hearing.
You should not recuse yourself based solely on this simple observation, which is unrelated to the Supreme Court, my Lord. It is an incompetent observation. We urge this court to proceed with the hearing,” Awomolo said.
However, Kanu vehemently disagreed, claiming that the Supreme Court’s remaining judgment was a copy of the document in his hand.
He then proceeded to read a section that claimed the judge’s impartiality was questioned based on the trial court’s actions.
He also attempted to persuade the judge that he was fed up with the trial, which he claimed violated constitutional rights, that his objection to her presided over his case was not personal.