The trial of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has been indefinitely adjourned by Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court, Abuja. The decision came after Kanu insisted that Justice Nyako could not preside over his case, referencing her prior recusal.
The legal battle took a significant turn when Kanu, who had been ordered to appear in court on February 10, 2025, challenged the judge’s authority. In January, Kanu had petitioned the National Judicial Council (NJC), accusing Justice Nyako of judicial misconduct. Subsequently, he demanded that his trial be relocated to the South-East if no other judge in Abuja’s Federal High Court was willing to handle his case apart from Nyako.
During Monday’s proceedings, prosecuting lawyer Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN) announced that the prosecution had filed and served all necessary documents and was prepared to proceed. However, defense lawyer Aloy Ejimakor clarified that the primary issue was not about moving forward with the trial, but the judge’s jurisdiction over the case.
Justice Nyako intervened, explaining that despite her earlier recusal, the court’s Chief Judge had rejected her decision to step down. She instructed the defense to file a formal motion requesting the case’s reassignment.
Kanu, who had remained silent in the dock, then suddenly interjected, requesting to take over his defense. When asked if he intended to represent himself instead of his lawyer, Kanu affirmed, stating he only attended court out of respect for the judiciary but did not recognize the judge’s authority over his case. He argued that since she recused herself in September of the previous year, she no longer had jurisdiction.
Turning to the prosecuting counsel, Kanu made scathing remarks, questioning why he was allegedly subverting the law instead of upholding justice. Addressing Justice Nyako, he declared that he did not recognize her authority and accused her of bias. He insisted that the Chief Judge’s memo, which reassigned the case back to Nyako, could not override her initial recusal.
More Read
At one point, Kanu vehemently criticized the proceedings, stating, “This is not a court of law. This is a shrine to injustice, and I will not subject myself to it.” He further insisted that the judge must step down from his case permanently.
Justice Nyako, in her ruling, stated that given the developments in court, she had no choice but to adjourn the case indefinitely (sine die). However, Kanu was quick to dismiss the ruling, arguing that she had no jurisdiction to make any orders, including an adjournment. He maintained that the Chief Judge’s directive could not grant her jurisdiction.
With the trial now stalled indefinitely, the judiciary faces a critical decision on how to proceed, as the legal impasse raises broader concerns about due process and judicial independence.
