Nnamdi Kanu Petitions CJN Over Chief Judge’s Refusal To Reassign Case From Recused Justice Nyako
Kanu through his legal team led by his Special Counsel, Barrister Aloy Ejimakor, in a letter dated February 19, 2025, wrote to the CJN over the Federal High Court Chief Judge’s refusal to withdraw the case from the recused judge, Justice Binta Nyako and reassign it to another judge.
The detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has written to the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, for an urgent intervention in his case at the Federal High Court, Abuja.
Kanu through his legal team led by his Special Counsel, Barrister Aloy Ejimakor, in a letter dated February 19, 2025, wrote to the CJN over the Federal High Court Chief Judge’s refusal to withdraw the case from the recused judge, Justice Binta Nyako and reassign it to another judge.
“The purpose of this communication is to most respectfully request Your Lordship’s prompt administrative intervention, directing the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court to abide by the law and assign this case for trial to a Court that possesses the requisite jurisdiction,” the letter stated.
The letter further read, “This case commenced in 2015 and was pending trial before Honourable Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako until 24th September 2024 when His Lordship, pursuant to the request of our Client, recused himself from presiding over the trial; and accordingly entered and enrolled an Order of recusal thereof.
“Our Client’s request for the said recusal was propelled by his keen apprehension of bias, stemming from several pronouncements made against our Client by the recused Judge, including in particular His Lordship’s refusal to restore our Client’s bail despite the pronouncement of the Honorable Supreme Court against His Lordship’s prior revocation of our Client’s bail and in which same judgement the apex Court had also stated that the ‘impartiality of the said recused Judge has become suspect’.
“Despite the foregoing, the Complainant wrote to the Court on 5th December 2024, requesting that the case be re-listed for trial before the recused Judge (i.e. Honourable Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako).
“In our reaction, we countered with a reply, opposing the re-listing or reassignment of the case to the same Judge because the order of recusal – being extant and subsisting – legally barred His Lordship from presiding over the trial or has otherwise ousted the jurisdiction of that particular Court.
“In total disregard of the incontrovertible facts enunciated above, the Honourable Chief Judge proceeded to reassign this case for trial before the same Judge who stands recused by the said order of recusal; and on 10th February 2025, our Client was summoned to appear for trial before the same Judge.”
The letter noted that upon the receipt of the hearing notice, Kanu’s legal team wrote a letter to the Federal High Court Chief Judge, protesting the reassignment of the case to Justice Nyako.
It read, “In the alternative, requesting for transfer of the case to the Southeast (prompted by credible information at our disposal indicating that no other Judge in the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court is willing to take the case, in addition to the fact that Southeast is the place where the offenses were alleged to have had impact).
“In the meantime, the Defendant had – on 14th January 2025 – filed a Complaint against the said recused Judge before the National Judicial Council and the said Complaint is still pending.
“Despite the foregoing, the said Honourable Judge neither responded to our said letter nor reassigned the case to a Judge other than the said Judge that was recused.
“Thus, on the said 10th February 2025, we – out of our abiding respect for the sanctity of the court – appeared under protest before the recused Judge, whereupon the said court (sans jurisdiction) entered an order of adjournment sine die.”
Kanu argued that in Okoduwa v. State (1988), the Supreme Court held that a judge’s withdrawal from a case due to allegations of bias renders any subsequent involvement in the same case improper.
Similarly, he noted that in Rashidi v. Ministry of Health (1990), the court emphasized that judicial integrity requires that recusal decisions be final unless properly reviewed.
The letter noted, “This apex court has pronounced in a plethora of cases that a Judge who has demonstrated bias or is perceived to be biased ought to recuse himself.
“This stare decisis was emphasized in Deduwa v. Okorodudu (1976) 10 SC 329, in which the Supreme Court held that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.
“And to be sure, recusal of a Judge is anchored on the constitutional right to a fair hearing as provided under Section 36(1) of the Nigerian Constitution which guarantees the right of our Client to be heard by an impartial tribunal.
“Thus, once a judge voluntarily recuses himself, the immediate legal consequence is that such a Judge is disqualified from further proceedings in the matter.”
Kanu stated that a decision or an Order of Recusal is akin to a decision on jurisdiction which cannot be reversed arbitrarily.
“Your Lordship, it is thus on the basis of the foregoing that we were left with no other choice than to bring this matter before Your Lordship, praying that Your Lordship invoke your administrative powers as the head of the judiciary in Nigeria to halt this gross miscarriage to the Defendant and direct the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court to reassign this case to another Judge in the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court or any of the Divisions in Southeast Nigeria,” the letter stated.
