FCT, Abuja – A Federal High Court in Abuja has indefinitely adjourned the trial of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), after he challenged the authority of Justice Binta Nyako to preside over his case.
The decision came after a tense courtroom session on Monday, February 10, during which Kanu insisted that the judge had already recused herself from the case and no longer had the jurisdiction to continue.
Background: Recusal Controversy and Chief Judge’s Memo
Justice Nyako had previously stepped down from Kanu’s trial on September 24, 2024, following an oral application from the defendant.
“I hereby recuse myself and remit the case file back to the chief judge,” she declared at the time.
However, Chief Judge John Tsoho later reassigned the case to Nyako, stating that Kanu must formally file a motion requesting reassignment.
Despite the chief judge’s directive, Kanu’s legal team, led by Aloy Ejimakor, maintained that the judge’s initial recusal remained valid.
In a December 9, 2024, letter, Ejimakor requested that the case be transferred to another jurisdiction if no Abuja-based judge was willing to take over.
Courtroom Drama: Kanu Confronts the Judge
When proceedings resumed on February 10, prosecution counsel Adegboyega Awomolo informed the court that all necessary filings had been completed and that they were prepared to proceed with trial.
However, Ejimakor countered that the key issue at hand was the judge’s lack of jurisdiction.
Justice Nyako explained that while she preferred not to handle the case, the chief judge’s directive required Kanu’s lawyers to file a formal application requesting a reassignment, Vanguard reported.
At this point, Kanu interjected forcefully:
“I want to speak,” he declared. When Nyako asked if he wished to represent himself, he affirmed, “Yes, I want to take over.”
Addressing the court, Kanu asserted,
“I don’t recognize the authority of this court to preside over my case. Everything you said here is meaningless to me.”
Raising his voice, he accused the prosecution of manipulating the judicial process.
“A grown-up man like you, who should be in the village ensuring things are done properly, is here subverting the law,” Kanu said, directing his remarks at Awomolo.
Fiery Exchange as Kanu Rejects Court’s Authority
Justice Nyako reminded Kanu that he had the right to appeal the chief judge’s decision, The Cable reported.
“If the chief judge disagrees, he should appeal the decision. You cannot preside over this case, not now, not today, not ever.
“You stand recused and must leave my case. You are biased. Tell the chief judge that Nnamdi Kanu said so,” Kanu retorted.
In an emotional outburst, he further accused the judiciary of operating unfairly:
“This is not a court of law; this is a shrine to injustice, and I will not subject myself to it.”
The prosecution then urged the court to proceed with trial.
“In view of the fact that the defendant has indicated that he would not make a formal application, I apply that your lordship gives us a definite date for trial,” Awomolo pleaded.
Kanu swiftly fired back:
“Because of the money they are paying you from the AGF’s office, a grown-up man like you is here supporting evil. The rule of law says you should go on appeal.”
“The same chief judge writing this stupid memo—I have recused him before. He sat on appeal, I took him to NJC, and recused him. Why is he insisting on this one? He wants to embarrass your lordship by asking her to sit on this case.”
Court’s Decision: Indefinite Adjournment
After the heated exchanges, Justice Nyako declared that the only course of action was to halt the trial indefinitely.
“In light of what is happening now in court, I am going to adjourn this case sine die (indefinitely),” she ruled.
Kanu, however, dismissed her decision, saying:
“You have no jurisdiction to adjourn anything. None whatsoever. You cannot make an order without jurisdiction.
“The memo from the chief judge cannot confer jurisdiction upon you,” he shouted before the session ended.
With the indefinite adjournment, Kanu’s legal battle remains unresolved, raising further questions about the next steps in his controversial trial.
