Justice Binta Nyako of a Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday, adjourned the trial of Nnamdi Kanu, Leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), indefinitely.
Justice Nyako gave the order after Kanu and his counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, insisted that the trial judge no longer had jurisdiction to preside over the case following her earlier recusal (withdrawal) from the matter.
Recall that Justice Nyako had, on Sept. 24, 2024, recused herself from the trial of Kanu, after an oral application from the defense and the case file was transferred to the Chief Judge.
However, the Chief Judge (CJ) of FHC, Justice John Tsoho sent the case file back to Justice Nyako for adjudication, insisting that a formal application must be made by the defence before the recusal could be accepted.
When the matter was called on Monday, counsel to the Federal Government, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, informed the court that the case was for the resumption of Kanu’s trial.
“Your lordship will recall that on the last date of hearing, there was an oral application that your lordship should recuse yourself and the file be remitted back to the CJ.”
“The CJ, who has the power, has sent back the file. We are ready to proceed with the trial and our witnesses are ready too.
“In obedience to your lordship order, the proof of evidence and relevant documents have been served on the defence and we are ready to go on,” he said.
Hardly had Awomolo ended his statement when Ejimakor interjected.
“My lord, this honourable court has recused itself from the case and my lord has to tell us, first, why we are here before the learner silk could talk.
“We don’t know why we are here because this court stands recused by the extant order,” Ejimakor said.
Justice Nyako then explained that on Sept. 24, 2024, she sent the case file back to the CJ.
“On Oct. 7, 2024, I got a memo from the CJ and it instructs as follows that if the defendant still wants a recusal, he should file a formal application by way of motion on notice.
“It was minuted to me by the CJ. The CJ has not accepted by recusal and has minuted the file back to me.
“So if you still want a recusal, you will file a motion on notice and the prosecution will join issues with you and it will be adjourned for ruling.
“I have so many cases before me so it is not as if I am begging for a case,” the judge said.
Responding, Ejimakor disagreed with Justice Nyako.
“With due respect, even though we do not have the privy of the memo from the chief judge, the chief judge does not have the judicial power above this court.
“The CJ is just the first among equals and his memo cannot override the subsisting order of this court that has been enrolled.
“An ordinary administrative memo should not be allowed to override the order of this court. The order stands and we are guided by it,” Ejimakor insisted.
“My advice is that you should go and file a formal application irrespective of your position.
“The power vested in the CJ is not vested in me. He has the power to assign cases in line with the law.
“You are just stalling your client’s case. File everything you want to and the prosecution will join issues with you,” the judge told Ejimakor.
Ejimakor argued that there was no rule of the court that mandated a party to file an application when a recusal had already been done.
While Ejimakor was addressing the court, Kanu cut in and asked his lawyer to keep quiet and sit down.
“Mr Kanu, are you taking over from your lawyer?” Justice Nyako asked and the IPOB leader responded in the affirmative.
Awomolo, who expressed surprise at the development, said: he was embarrassed by the proceedings.
The FG’s lawyer said after the explanation by the judge, the proper thing to do by Ejimakor was to either indicate if he would be filing a formal application or not.
Ejimakor stood up to respond to Awomolo’s submission but the judge told him: “Mr Aloy, you have been disengaged. Don’t say anything.”
Kanu then stood up from the dock to address the court.
The IPOB leader insisted that his trial could no longer be before the judge.
Turning to Chief Awomolo, Kanu said: “The Chairman of the Body of Benchers is here distorting the laws.
“This man is a grown-up man and should be upholding the law.
“Why is he turning the law upside down. I came here because of the respect I have for you (the court). God is my witness.”
“I have not said anything that is contrary to anything.. I sent the case file to CJ and he sent it back to me,” Justice Nyako restated.
“But he (the CJ) is wrong. The CJ supposed to go on appeal because you cannot preside over my case again; not today and not tomorrow.
“Why must he insist that you must be on my case? You are biased. So I don’t want you on my case again. You stand recused,” Kanu said angrily.
Against the development, Awomolo therefore applied for a trial date.
“In view of the fact that the defendant has said that he will not make a formal application, I apply that my lord give a date for the hearing,” the senior lawyer said.
Responding, Kanu said a memo from the CJ cannot override the order of the court.
He recalled that Justice Tsoho, who is presently the CJ, had once presided over his case and he applied that he recused himself from his case.
Kanu said during the time, he took Justice Tsoho to National Judicial Council (NJC) and he won, leading to Justice Tsoho’s withdrawal from his case.
“Why is he insisting that his lordship should continue even after recusing herself?
“Can a memo from the CJ override court order? The answer is no.
“Justice Binta stands recused,” he said.
The IPOB leader, who brought out some documents, said: “This is a National Judicial Policy of Nigeria. Please give it to Chief Awomolo, it seems he doesn’t know the law.
“The rule of law is once an order of court is made, it can only be set aside on appeal. Please give him a copy.
“It seems he doesn’t know. If you don’t like what Justice Nyako has done, go on appeal. She is functus officio. Stop wasting your time.”
When the judge said she would adjourned the case sine die (indefinitely) pending when the parties agree, Kanu said: “You cannot adjourn this case sine die because you have no jurisdiction to adjourn sine die.”
Justice Nyako consequently adjourned the matter sine die (indefinitely).
“The case is now in limbo. I have to adjourn sine die,” she said.
However, Kanu kept shouting in the court: “Why must you insist you must take it. You have an agenda.”
Meanwhile, Nnamdi Kanu’s, lawyers have described Justice Murtala-Nyako’s indefinite adjournment of the case as null and void.
According to them, she no longer has jurisdiction to hear the case since she recused herself on September 24, 2024.
Explaining why the judge can no longer hear the trial, Kanu’s lawyers said in a statement: “First of all, the process by which the Honourable Justice Murtala-Nyako exited from the case as the trial judge was a “judicial event”, as it emanated from the court order she made on 24th September 2024. A plain reading of the order shows that Her Lordship graciously consented to the recusal and that alone amounts to something.
“The said order is extant and subsisting and was never appealed. So, to this day, it remains valid in all ramifications, such that strains the legality of the hearing conducted before the same judge today, 10th February.”
Kanu has claimed that Justice Nyako is biased and being used against him, referencing a Supreme Court decision that removed her from his case. He stated, “She should not be handling my case at all. I showed up out of respect, but she had no authority to challenge me. A lot is happening in this country that many people aren’t aware of, and I want to make that clear today because there are too many false stories circulating.”
“I sent a petition to the NJC. I don’t want to talk about it, justice Binta Nyako is using her position for personal gain. her son and her husband are facing corruption charges, and they told them that if they convict me, they sent her to my case so they can release or smoothen the pathway for the husband and the son.
“There is a bridge of Judicial Oath, they have violated their judicial oath, they have shown bias according to the Supreme Court. They are biased against me. Supreme Court said so. And that is why what has been happening in the judgments and rulings concerning me has been happening.
“Disobedience to superior court orders. Supreme Court said, You are biased against this man, you should not have revoked his bail. Nigeria went to Kenya and kidnapped him. These things are in the public domain. The court order was entered, and in that very court order, it was said very clearly and succinctly that she was no longer going to try me, why are they insisting? I ask you because they have no case against me.” the IPOB leader added.