Judge Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court in Abuja has indefinitely adjourned the trial of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB). The adjournment came after Kanu argued that Nyako could no longer preside over his case, citing her previous recusal on September 24 following an oral application by Kanu’s team. This development marks a significant pause in the trial, with no clear indication of when proceedings will resume.

Nnamdi Kanu in Court

Justice Binta Nyako had initially recused herself from Nnamdi Kanu’s trial, stating, “I hereby recuse myself and remit the case file back to the chief judge.” However, Kanu had explicitly expressed his lack of confidence in Nyako’s ability to handle his case impartially. Nevertheless, Chief Judge John Tsoho overturned Nyako’s recusal, ruling that Kanu’s application for recusal must be formally submitted to the court through a motion on notice.

Following Nnamdi Kanu’s case, the prosecution counsel, Adegboyega Awomolo, requested a trial date in a letter dated December 5, 2024, addressed to the Deputy Chief Registrar. However, Kanu’s counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, opposed this request in a letter dated December 9, 2024, emphasizing that the judge’s previous recusal remains valid. Ejimakor further requested that the case be transferred to a federal high court in the southeast if no Abuja-based judge is willing to preside over it.

At today’s resumed session, prosecution counsel Adegboyega Awomolo informed the court that all necessary documents had been filed and served, and they were ready to proceed with Nnamdi Kanu’s trial. However, Kanu’s lawyer, Aloy Ejimakor, disagreed, stating that this wasn’t the main issue at hand. Judge Binta Nyako explained that despite her willingness to recuse herself from the case, the chief judge had denied her request and instead directed Kanu’s team to submit a formal motion for reassignment to another judge. As lawyers debated whether a formal motion was necessary, Kanu interrupted, exclaiming, “I want to speak!”

Nnamdi Kanu, the separatist leader, informed the judge that he wished to take over his case, responding affirmatively when asked if he wanted to represent himself. Kanu expressed his respect for the court, clarifying that his presence was a testament to that respect. However, he maintained that Judge Nyako no longer had jurisdiction over his case due to her recusal in September.

Nnamdi Kanu unleashed his frustration on the prosecution counsel, saying, “You’re a grown man who should be upholding the law in your community, but instead, you’re here undermining it.” He then turned to the judge, his voice raised in protest, “I refuse to acknowledge this court’s authority over my case. Your words are meaningless to me.” Kanu questioned the unusual handling of his case, asking, “Why is everything turned upside down when it comes to me?” He emphasized that the chief judge’s memo returning the case file to Judge Nyako cannot supersede the court’s enrolled order from September 24.

Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), defiantly told the court that Judge Binta Nyako had no authority to preside over his case, citing her previous recusal. When informed that he could appeal the chief judge’s directive, Kanu retorted, “If the chief judge disagrees, he should appeal the decision.” Kanu emphatically stated that Nyako was biased and couldn’t preside over his case, declaring, “This is not a court of law, this is a shrine to injustice and I will not subject myself to it.”

Meanwhile, prosecution counsel Adegboyega Awomolo requested a trial date, stating, “Given the defendant’s refusal to make a formal application, I urge your lordship to set a definite trial date.” Nnamdi Kanu responded sharply, accusing Awomolo of being influenced by payments from the Attorney General’s office, saying, “You’re supporting evil because of the money they’re paying you. The rule of law says you should appeal.” Kanu’s outburst reflects his ongoing dissatisfaction with the trial process, particularly Judge Binta Nyako’s continued involvement despite her previous recusal.

Nnamdi Kanu in Court

Nnamdi Kanu expressed frustration, stating that the chief justice, who wrote the memo, had been previously recused from his case after Kanu took him to the National Judicial Council (NJC). Kanu questioned why the chief justice was insisting on this particular case, suggesting it was an attempt to embarrass the trial judge, Justice Binta Nyako. In response, Justice Nyako announced that she would adjourn the case indefinitely, citing the unfolding events in the courtroom.

This decision comes after Kanu and his counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, argued that Justice Nyako no longer had jurisdiction over the case due to her previous recusal. Nnamdi Kanu vehemently told the judge, “You lack the authority to adjourn this case or make any orders, as you’ve lost jurisdiction. The chief judge’s memo can’t restore your jurisdiction.” Kanu’s outburst emphasized his stance that Judge Binta Nyako’s previous recusal meant she could no longer preside over his case.