Detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has demanded the transfer of his trial to the South-East if no other judge at the Federal High Court in Abuja is willing to preside over his case besides Justice Binta Nyako.
Kanu’s demand follows Justice Nyako’s recusal from the case on September 24, 2024, due to the IPOB leader’s expressed lack of confidence in her handling of the trial. However, the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, later reassigned the case back to Justice Nyako, prompting fresh opposition from Kanu.
Kanu Challenges Justice Nyako’s Reassignment
Kanu, through his lead counsel Aloy Ejimakor, has accused Justice Nyako’s reappointment of undermining judicial integrity. After a routine meeting with Kanu at the Department of State Services (DSS) facility in Abuja, Ejimakor disclosed that Kanu had directed his legal team to prevent Justice Nyako from continuing with the case.
“The central issue discussed during today’s visitation was the upcoming court date for the continuation of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s case. Onyendu has instructed the legal team to ensure that his case is not presided over by Justice Binta Nyako, who had previously recused herself,” Ejimakor said in a statement.
Call for South-East Trial Venue
Kanu’s legal team emphasized the constitutional implications of the situation and suggested that if no judge in Abuja is willing to take the case, it should be transferred to a Federal High Court in the South-East.
“The Chief Judge is free to transfer the case to Umuahia, Awka, Enugu, Asaba, Port Harcourt, or any other Federal High Court within the former Eastern Nigeria, where the alleged offenses were said to have occurred or had their impact,” the statement added.
Judicial Tensions Persist
This development highlights ongoing tensions surrounding Kanu’s trial, which has been a flashpoint for political and judicial debates in Nigeria. The IPOB leader’s insistence on transparency and fairness in his trial underscores broader concerns over the judiciary’s impartiality in politically sensitive cases.
