Nnamdi Kanu Rejects Federal Government’s Request to Resume Trial
By DAYO ADESULU
IPOB Leader Opposes Resumption of Case Before Justice Nyako
The leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has formally rejected the federal government’s request to resume his trial. This follows a prior ruling by Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court on September 24, 2024, where she recused herself from handling Kanu’s case after an oral application by the defendant, citing a lack of confidence in her impartiality.
Background: Justice Nyako Recuses Herself
Justice Nyako, in her ruling, stated, “I hereby recuse myself and remit the case file back to the chief judge.” However, Chief Judge John Tsoho later returned the case file to Nyako, stating that Kanu’s application for her recusal must be filed formally as a motion on notice.
Federal Government Pushes for Trial Date
On December 5, prosecution counsel Adegboyega Awomolo, representing the federal government, submitted a letter to the Deputy Chief Registrar requesting a trial date to continue proceedings.
Kanu’s Counsel Files Objection
Kanu’s legal representative, Aloy Ejimakor, opposed the request for a trial date in a letter dated December 9. Ejimakor maintained that Justice Nyako’s recusal ruling remains valid and binding until overturned by a competent court.
In the objection, Ejimakor wrote:
“The defendant takes serious exception to the said letter and hereby vigorously objects to the request by the complainant for a date for the continuation of this criminal case before His Lordship, Hon. Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako.
“Our position is predicated on the fact-of-record that His Lordship had entered and enrolled an order recusing herself from handling the case or continuing with the trial.”
Legal Implications
Ejimakor further argued that the federal government’s request was “fatally misconceived” and could lead the court into “a path of infamy and unconstitutionality” if entertained.
He emphasized that Justice Nyako’s recusal order is still “extant and subsisting” and can only be reversed through a formal process on notice by a competent court.
What’s Next?
The ongoing legal battle raises questions about procedural compliance and judicial impartiality in the handling of high-profile cases like Kanu’s. The court is yet to respond to the latest objection, and a resolution on the matter remains pending.
