Rita Odafe
Nnamdi Kanu’s Request for Judge Recusal Explained
The legal representatives of Nnamdi Kanu, a prominent leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, have provided insights regarding their request for Justice Binta Nyako to withdraw from his ongoing trial at the Federal High Court in Abuja.
On September 24, Kanu expressed a lack of confidence in Justice Nyako, prompting him to call for her recusal from the case.
Although the government lawyers argued against this request, Justice Nyako ultimately decided to step back from the trial.
Aloy Ejimakor, the lead lawyer for Kanu, emphasized that this action was a legitimate exercise of their client’s constitutional rights.
During a press conference in Abuja, Ejimakor highlighted the ongoing issues with the Department of State Services (DSS), which have prevented them from meeting their client securely, contrary to court orders.
Ejimakor stated, “We organized this press briefing to revisit the September 24 court proceedings. This illustrates a defendant’s right to revoke confidence in a court when subjected to unfair conditions.”
“This situation, while unfortunate, could have been avoided. We have repeatedly submitted evidence showing that Kanu’s current detention conditions hinder his ability to prepare for trial due to multiple violations by the DSS.”
“The DSS has been known to confiscate our legal documents and monitor our communications. This situation prompted a former judge to order that we be provided a secure space for our discussions, but this has yet to be honored, leaving us vulnerable to surveillance every time we visit Kanu.”
“Per Section 36 of the Constitution, this is unacceptable. In light of the DSS’s non-compliance, we filed a contempt case still pending in the Federal High Court, yet nothing has changed.”
“When the judge insisted on continuing the trial amidst these issues, our client felt compelled to request her recusal because an effective defense was impossible under these conditions.”
Another member of Kanu’s legal team, Nnemeka Ejiofor, stressed that there was no intention of disrespect towards Justice Nyako in making this request.
Ejiofor explained that Kanu felt unsafe and that his fundamental rights were not adequately protected, which contributed to the decision for recusal.
“Some may perceive our actions on September 24 as disrespectful to the judiciary, but it’s essential to clarify that every defendant must feel secure and have their rights upheld in court. If that assurance is absent, a recusal request is justified.”
“Kanu’s decision was influenced by his view that Justice Nyako did not adequately respect a Supreme Court ruling regarding his bail.”
“If a Federal High Court judge disregards a Supreme Court decision, it raises concerns about the fairness of the trial.”
“Nonetheless, we want to emphasize that this action was not born out of disrespect for Justice Nyako, who we regard highly.”
In related comments, lawyer Jude Ugwuanyi mentioned that Kanu’s legal team would be ready to present their case before any judge they see as impartial.
He expressed concern that Kanu’s ongoing detention was contributing to rising insecurity in the Southeast.
“The Federal Government appears unwilling to proceed with Kanu’s trial, even as the people of the Southeast suffer the brunt of the prevailing insecurity. I’ve lost family due to this violence, leading many to question the government’s motivation in delaying the trial.”
“Each court appearance has seen the prosecution claim unpreparedness for trial, which is difficult to understand given the circumstances. Instead of facilitating a fair trial, there is resistance to adjustments that would enable our client adequate conditions for defense.”
“Kanu was justified in calling for a new judge but did not specify any individual. He simply sought a judge who he believed would ensure fairness. We are prepared to proceed with any impartial judge in this case.”
