Nnamdi Kanu’s trial: IPOB lawyer rejects resumption amid controversial court decisions

DDM News

The lead counsel for Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Aloy Ejimakor, has outrightly rejected the Nigerian government’s recent attempt to set a new date for the resumption of Kanu’s trial.

Diaspora digital media (DDM) gathered that Ejimakor’s objection stems from a court order made by Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court in Abuja, who officially recused herself from the case on September 24, 2024.

This development has deepened the controversies surrounding Kanu’s trial and the government’s handling of the matter.

The issue began when Kanu filed a formal request asking Justice Nyako to step down from presiding over his trial.

He cited a lack of confidence in her ability to fairly adjudicate the case.

In response, Justice Nyako agreed and transferred the case file to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho.

However, rather than assigning the case to another judge, Justice Tsoho returned it to Justice Nyako for continuation.

This unexpected move by the Chief Judge prompted the prosecuting counsel for the Nigerian government, Adegboyega Awomolo, to request a trial date before Justice Nyako.

In a letter dated December 5, 2024, addressed to the Deputy Chief Registrar of the Federal High Court, Awomolo outlined the government’s position.

He wrote: “We write as prosecuting counsel in the above-named criminal case pending before the Federal High Court, No. 2.

Your record will reveal that the defendant asked His Lordship, the Honourable Justice Binta Nyako, to recuse herself on Tuesday, 24th September 2024.

The case file was returned to the Honourable Chief Judge.

We were informed that the Hon. Chief Judge had returned the case file for the continuation of trial before His Lordship, the Honourable Justice Binta Nyako.

Grateful, may we ask for a date for the continuation of hearing of the criminal charges against the defendant.

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.”

In response, Ejimakor vehemently opposed the prosecuting counsel’s request.

In his counter-letter to the Deputy Chief Registrar, he described the government’s move as “fatally misconceived” and a potential trigger for judicial misconduct.

Ejimakor further argued that granting the request would lead Justice Nyako down a path of “infamy and unconstitutionality.”

Ejimakor wrote: “This communication pertains to the attached letter by the complainant requesting ‘a date for continuation of hearing of the criminal charges against the defendant.’

By this communication, we wish to go on record to inform your good offices that 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 hearing of this criminal case before His Lordship, Hon. Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako.

Our position is predicated on the fact of record that His Lordship (Hon. Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako) had entered and enrolled an order recusing herself from handling the case or continuing with the trial.

The said order was entered on 24th September 2024 and, to date, remains extant and subsisting, as it has not been set aside by a subsequent order made by a competent court, pursuant to a competent process on notice.

Accordingly, we believe that the complainant’s request is fatally misconceived and, if not checked, may mislead this Honourable Court to a path of infamy and unconstitutionality.

For the avoidance of doubt, as of 24th September 2024, the defendant no longer has any such case to answer before His Lordship, Hon. Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako.”

This ongoing legal battle marks yet another chapter in the complex and highly controversial trial of Nnamdi Kanu.

Kanu, who has remained in custody since his extraordinary rendition from Kenya in June 2021, continues to face significant legal challenges.

Despite the Court of Appeal’s decision to discharge and acquit him of all charges in 2022, the Nigerian government has refused to release him, maintaining its stance on prosecuting him for alleged offenses, including treasonable felony.

The refusal to release Kanu following his acquittal prompted further legal actions, with the matter eventually reaching the Supreme Court.

In December 2023, the apex court ruled that Kanu’s case should be sent back to the Abuja Federal High Court for retrial.

This ruling has faced criticism from many quarters, with IPOB supporters and human rights advocates arguing that Kanu should not face further prosecution given the Appeal Court’s prior judgment.

The decision of the Federal High Court Chief Judge, Justice John Tsoho, to return the case file to Justice Nyako has added another layer of controversy to the matter.

Critics argue that the move undermines judicial integrity and raises questions about the independence of the judiciary in politically sensitive cases like this one.

For Ejimakor and Kanu’s defense team, the government’s persistence in pursuing the trial before Justice Nyako represents a violation of due process.

They insist that Justice Nyako’s recusal order remains valid and binding until overturned by a competent court.

Allowing her to preside over the case again, they argue, would not only violate judicial norms but also compromise the credibility of the trial.

Meanwhile, Kanu’s continued incarceration has drawn international attention and condemnation.

Human rights organizations and international observers have accused the Nigerian government of flouting court orders and engaging in judicial overreach.

The case has also fueled tensions in southeastern Nigeria, where IPOB commands significant grassroots support.

Kanu’s supporters view his detention as part of a broader effort to suppress the Biafra independence movement, while the government insists that its actions are aimed at preserving national unity and security.

As the legal tug-of-war intensifies, it remains unclear how the Federal High Court will address the conflicting positions of the prosecution and defense.

What is clear, however, is that the outcome of this case will have far-reaching implications, not just for Kanu and IPOB, but also for the broader discourse on justice, human rights, and the rule of law in Nigeria.

For Diaspora Digital Media Updates click on Whatsapp, or Telegram. For eyewitness accounts/ reports/ articles, write to: citizenreports@diasporadigitalmedia.com. Follow us on X (Fomerly Twitter) or Facebook