The Federal High Court in Abuja has indefinitely adjourned the trial of Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB). Justice Binta Nyako, who was originally scheduled to preside over the case, made this ruling on Monday following Kanu’s firm opposition to her handling of the trial.
Kanu had objected to Justice Nyako’s continued oversight of his case, insisting that she was no longer fit to preside after previously recusing herself. His stance was further strengthened by a formal petition he had filed in January against the judge before the National Judicial Council (NJC), accusing her of judicial misconduct.
In a separate development, the IPOB leader also requested his case to be relocated to the South-East region if no judge at the Federal High Court in Abuja was willing to take over proceedings, apart from Justice Nyako.
Before Monday’s hearing, PUNCH Online had reported that Kanu was mandated to appear before Justice Nyako on February 10, 2025, at the Federal High Court in Abuja. However, with the latest ruling, the trial remains uncertain, with no definitive timeline for its resumption.
The adjournment marks another significant turn in Kanu’s prolonged legal battle, which has been a focal point of political and judicial discourse in Nigeria. His trial has drawn attention, given the wider implications of the IPOB movement and the Nigerian government’s stance on secessionist activities.
Court Proceedings Take a Drastic Turn
As the Federal High Court in Abuja convened for the trial of IPOB leader Nnamdi Kanu, tensions flared between the legal representatives, the presiding judge, and the defendant himself. The court session, which was expected to move forward with substantive legal arguments, instead became a stage for heated exchanges and procedural controversies.
Prosecution Declares Readiness for Trial
At the commencement of proceedings, lead prosecuting counsel Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN) informed the court that the prosecution had duly filed and served all necessary documents and was prepared to proceed with the trial. However, the defense, led by Aloy Ejimakor, promptly interjected, emphasizing that the core issue before the court was not the commencement of trial but rather the question of jurisdiction and judicial recusal.
Judge’s Prior Recusal Raises Questions
Justice Binta Nyako, in response to the defense’s assertion, clarified that she had previously recused herself from the case. However, her attempt to withdraw was overruled by the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, who insisted she remain on the case. Given the circumstances, she advised the defense to formally file a motion requesting reassignment to another judge.
The courtroom atmosphere grew more intense as both prosecution and defense debated the necessity of a formal motion. During this exchange, Kanu, who had been silently observing from the dock, suddenly spoke out, demanding to address the court directly.
Kanu Insists on Representing Himself
Justice Nyako, acknowledging his request, inquired whether Kanu intended to take over his legal representation. Without hesitation, Kanu affirmed his decision, declaring that he no longer recognized the authority of the court over his trial. He asserted that his appearance was merely out of respect for the judiciary and not due to any belief in the court’s jurisdiction.
He further contended that the Chief Judge’s memo returning the case file to Justice Nyako could not override the enrolled order she made on September 24 of the previous year when she first recused herself.
Kanu’s outburst extended beyond the presiding judge, as he directed sharp words at the prosecution. Addressing Awomolo, he remarked:
“A grown-up man like you, who should be in the village ensuring that things are done properly, is here subverting the law.”
Prosecution Pushes for Trial Date
Despite the escalating tensions, Awomolo urged the court to set a definitive date for trial. He pointed out that since Kanu had refused to submit a formal application challenging Justice Nyako’s continued oversight, proceedings should move forward without further delay.
Before the prosecutor could conclude his request, Kanu interjected again, accusing the prosecution of pursuing the case for financial gain.
Court Adjourns Indefinitely
Faced with the continued disruptions and legal uncertainties, Justice Nyako ruled that the case would be adjourned indefinitely (sine die), stating:
“The only decision I can make right now is that in the light of what is happening in court today, I am going to adjourn this case sine die.”
Reacting immediately, Kanu challenged her authority to make any such ruling.
“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 insisted.
