Kanu’s Family Demands Sanction Against Chief Judge Tsoho, Justice Nyako Over Court Order Violations
The family accused the judges of blatant disobedience to valid court rulings, which they said has tarnished the reputation of the judiciary.
The family of Nnamdi Kanu, the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has called for the sanctioning of the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, and Justice Binta Nyako for allegedly disregarding court orders.
The family accused the judges of blatant disobedience to valid court rulings, which they said has tarnished the reputation of the judiciary.
In a statement signed by Kanu’s brother, Prince Emmanuel Kanu, on behalf of the family on Sunday in Abuja and made available to journalists, the family highlighted key judicial decisions from both Nigerian courts and international bodies that have ruled in favor of Kanu’s release.
The statement commended the intervention of the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Kudirat Motonmori Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun, for reassigning Kanu’s trial to a judge free from bias.
The statement read: “Whilst we welcome the timely intervention of the Honourable Chief Justice of Nigeria in ensuring that the decade-long sham trial of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is duly assigned to a competent judge untainted by bias or one that openly and unashamedly panders to tribal sentiments or exhibits the tendency to succumb to executive manipulation; we find it shocking that it required the involvement of the conscious public and that of the most senior judicial officer in Nigeria for Binta Nyako to obey her own order of recusal she made in her own court.
“In any sane country that takes adherence to the rule of law seriously, both John Tsoho, the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, and Binta Nyako, the presiding judge that made the recusal order, ought to be sanctioned for bringing the judiciary into disrepute.
“Is it not bizarre that a judge blatantly refused to obey an order of court? A chief judge that sought to set aside a valid court order by way of a phantom memo (written note) and a presiding judge that blatantly refused to honour the order she enrolled in her own court have no business being on the bench.”
According to the family, it is more shocking that some “poorly informed, self-appointed defenders of judicial impunity in Nigeria would dare argue on the pages of newspapers and media interviews that a judge can ignore a valid court order. Shocking!”
The statement accused the Nigerian government of attempting to criminalise self-determination, which it described as a right protected by law.
It linked Kanu’s prosecution to a broader pattern of persecution against the Igbo people, drawing parallels to the events leading up to the Nigerian Civil War.
It said, “At the heart of this long-running saga is the attempt by the state of Nigeria to criminalise self-determination, which is a right guaranteed by law.
“If people were to take the time to study the origin of the persecution of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and the travails he continues to face and endure, they would understandably come to the conclusion that what is happening with the illegal and criminal proscription of IPOB in Abuja courts by haters of the Igbo race is not far removed from what transpired prior to the unleashing of the pogrom and genocidal war that claimed 5 million Igbo lives in 1966.”
It said the “same way the 1966 coup was tagged an Igbo coup and used as cover to unleash the Holocaust on the Biafra nation is how they aim to use the cover of terrorism (IPOB proscription) to eliminate the youthful populations of the East and jail Mazi Nnamdi Kanu”.
The statement also questioned the legality of IPOB’s proscription, claiming it was based on a flawed legal process.
The statement warned that the outcome of Kanu’s trial could expose Nigeria’s judiciary to global scrutiny.
“This matter has only just begun and by the time this sham trial is finished, the Nigerian judiciary and their injudicious selective justice will be exposed for the world to see,” it said.
“It is inconceivable that the damage the Nigerian judiciary is about to suffer will ever be eradicated from the minds of the populace.”
The family argued that IPOB’s proscription was imposed through a civil process that denied Kanu the right to a fair hearing, rendering the terrorism charges against him baseless.
