Nnamdi Kanu, the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has formally petitioned the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, seeking the reassignment of his ongoing trial to a different judge.
This request follows the recusal of Justice Binta Nyako from his case in September 2024, after Kanu raised concerns about potential bias.
Kanu’s legal challenges began in 2015 when he was arrested and charged with terrorism-related offenses. Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court in Abuja presided over the case until September 24, 2024, when she recused herself following Kanu’s allegations of bias. Despite her recusal, the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, reassigned the case back to Justice Nyako, prompting further objections from Kanu and his legal team.
In a letter dated February 19, 2025, Kanu’s special counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, addressed the CJN, emphasising that once a judge recuses themselves, they are legally disqualified from further involvement in the case. The letter stated: “Once a judge voluntarily recuses themselves, the immediate legal consequence is that they are disqualified from further proceedings.”
The defense also highlighted that the reassignment of the case back to Justice Nyako contradicts established legal principles and could undermine public confidence in the judiciary. They urged the CJN to direct the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court to assign the case to another judge within the Abuja division or consider transferring it to a court in the South-East region.
On February 10, 2025, during a scheduled hearing, Justice Nyako acknowledged her previous recusal but noted that the Chief Judge had returned the case to her docket. She advised Kanu’s defense team to file a formal motion if they sought her recusal.
In response, Kanu expressed strong objections, stating he did not recognise the court’s authority over his case and questioned the jurisdiction of the court to continue presiding over his trial.
The ongoing dispute over judicial assignment in Kanu’s trial raises significant questions about judicial impartiality and procedural integrity. The CJN’s intervention is being sought to ensure that the case proceeds fairly and in accordance with legal standards. As of now, the trial has been adjourned indefinitely, pending further directives from higher judicial authorities.
