The trial of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), is not just a legal matter; it is a defining moment for Nigeria’s judiciary, democracy, and commitment to the rule of law.
Chief Aloy Ejimakor, Kanu’s legal counsel, has strongly opposed the return of Justice Binta Nyako to this case after she previously recused herself on September 24, 2024.
This is not a minor procedural complaint—it is a fundamental issue of judicial ethics, due process, and the legitimacy of Nigeria’s legal system. When a judge steps away from a case, especially in response to the defendant’s loss of confidence, it sets a precedent that cannot be reversed arbitrarily.
Reintroducing Justice Nyako into the proceedings raises serious concerns about judicial impartiality and reinforces the perception of political interference in Nigeria’s courts.
Why Justice Nyako’s Return is Problematic
Justice Nyako’s decision to withdraw from the case was not made in a vacuum. It followed an open confrontation in court where Kanu himself declared, “My Lord, I have no confidence in this court anymore and I ask you to recuse yourself because you did not abide by the decision of the Supreme Court.” This statement alone highlights the deep-seated concerns over how this case is being handled.
A judge’s authority rests not just on legal mandates but on public trust. If a defendant and his legal team believe a court cannot deliver fair justice—and if the judge in question initially accepted this reasoning and stepped down—why is she being allowed to return? This reeks of systemic manipulation and further erodes public confidence in Nigeria’s judiciary.
Kanu’s Continued Detention: A Legal and Human Rights Violation
Beyond the question of judicial ethics, Ejimakor has raised another crucial issue: Kanu’s continued detention in a Department of State Services (DSS) facility rather than a conventional prison, despite a Supreme Court ruling that should have led to his release on bail. This is a blatant violation of due process and reinforces the troubling trend of selective justice in Nigeria.
International human rights conventions, to which Nigeria is a signatory, clearly establish that a defendant has the right to a fair trial, legal representation, and humane detention conditions. The continued incarceration of Kanu outside the established norms of the justice system is not just a legal failure—it is an affront to fundamental human rights.
Why the Trial Must Be Moved to the Southeast
Ejimakor’s demand that Kanu’s trial be relocated to a Federal High Court in the Southeast is a reasonable and legally sound request. The alleged offenses occurred in that region, and legal tradition dictates that cases be tried within the jurisdiction where they were committed. The insistence on keeping the trial in Abuja raises valid concerns about the government’s motives. Is this about justice, or about exerting control over the process to ensure a predetermined outcome?
A Call for Justice and Political Maturity
If the Nigerian government cannot guarantee a fair and impartial trial, the only justifiable course of action is to release Nnamdi Kanu immediately. Prolonging this legal battle with procedural manipulations and disregard for court rulings does more harm than good—it deepens political divisions, escalates tensions, and damages Nigeria’s already fragile democracy.
In a society where justice is selectively applied, democracy becomes nothing more than a façade. Nigeria stands at a crossroads: Will it choose to uphold the principles of fairness and judicial independence, or will it continue down the path of legal subversion and political persecution? The world is watching.
Discussion about this post