Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court in Abuja has recused herself from the federal government’s treason and terrorism-related case against the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, which has been ongoing since 2015.
Her withdrawal on Tuesday was prompted by a disruptive request from Kanu during the court’s scheduled trial commencement.
The federal government had accused Kanu of broadcasting threats across Nigeria, warning that anyone who flouted a sit-at-home order in the southeast would face consequences, and inciting insurrection against the government.
What Transpired in Court
The federal government alleged that, based on Kanu’s threats, banks, schools, markets, shopping malls, and petrol stations in the southeast have remained closed.
Kanu denied the allegations, paving the way for trial.
At the resumed hearing, the federal government’s lawyer, Adegboyega Awomolo SAN, requested that the trial commence.
Kanu’s lawyer, Alloy Ejimakor, asked the court to adjourn the trial due to two pending appeals challenging the court’s jurisdiction.
Awomolo argued that a criminal trial cannot be stalled because of a pending appeal and that the defense should file for a stay of proceedings at the appellate court.
The judge stated that the parties should not delay the matter, having ruled that the court would not attend to any applications until the end of the trial.
Ejimakor insisted it was inappropriate to continue with the trial when he had not adequately prepared his client.
He asserted that all court orders directing the detaining authority to allow him to prepare Kanu had been disobeyed.
The judge then directed that a prosecution witness be called, allowing Kanu’s lawyers to confer with him and cross-examine the witness the following day.
Kanu then stood up and confronted his counsel, instructing him to sit down.
He insisted that the Supreme Court ruled his fundamental rights should not be violated by the detaining authority, especially regarding access to his lawyers.
“I will not subject myself to this court,” Kanu stated, asking the judge to recuse herself from the matter.
Awomolo countered that the Supreme Court’s judgment delivered in 2023, regarding the federal government and Nnamdi Kanu, mandated the court to proceed with the hearing and determination of Kanu’s trial.
He stated that Kanu’s claims did not align with the Supreme Court’s verdict.
“This is clearly an incompetent and audacious observation,” Awomolo said.
The judge responded that, as far as she was concerned, there was nothing in the Supreme Court’s lead judgment that supported Kanu’s assertion.
She expressed surprise that the defendant would stand up and yell at his counsel.
“I have already recused myself from this case and remit the file to the Chief Judge for further necessary action,” Nyako stated, saying she could not proceed with a trial where a defendant lacks confidence in her.
Awomolo opposed the application for the judge to recuse herself.
“I hereby recuse myself. I refer the case to the Chief Judge,” Nyako declared, indicating that Kanu had disrupted the proceedings.
Awomolo expressed his appreciation to the judge, lamenting that it was a very unfortunate day.
A judge recusing herself means she is excusing herself from the case entirely.
What You Should Know
Recall that the court had dismissed Kanu’s applications regarding his continued detention at the Department of State Services (DSS) facility, as well as his request for the restoration of his bail.
In the first application, Kanu’s legal team sought an order dismissing the federal government’s terrorism suit as incompetent, given the unsafe custody of the defendant at the DSS facility.
The second application concerned bail, seeking an order to restore the bail previously granted to the defendant.
In ruling on these applications, Justice Binta Nyako held, “I have determined that the current place of custody is safe and appropriate.”
She added that any further applications by the defense would be considered an abuse of court process.
The judge noted that she had ruled on several bail applications by Kanu in the past.
However, she stated that the DSS must provide Kanu with a clean private room to interact with his lawyers, adding that his legal team should not exceed five members and must be allowed to write and take notes.
Regarding the issue of bail, she stated, “I have found that he jumped bail. As far as I am concerned, he jumped bail.”
She also emphasized that she did not find any reference to her court’s ruling in the Supreme Court’s judgment.
“The lead judgment of the apex court was silent on Kanu’s bail,” she remarked, stating that all applications by Kanu were “an issue of appeal.”
By this ruling, FG’s case which began in 2015 will start a fresh.
