Nnamdi Kanu’s Lawyers Write CJN On IPOB Leader’s Case In Abuja

The legal representatives of the embattled leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, have formally requested that the Chief Justice of the Federation, Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, to intervene with the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court in Abuja, Justice John Tsoho, to either reassign his case or transfer it to the South-East region.

Naija News recalls that Kanu’s trial began in 2015 and was previously under the jurisdiction of Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako at the Abuja Federal High Court until September 24, 2024, when the judge recused herself from the case at the request of the IPOB leader.

Justice Nyako subsequently issued and recorded an Order of recusal following her withdrawal from the trial.

In a letter dated February 19, 2025, addressed to Kekere-Ekun, Kanu’s lead counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, emphasized that the public’s perception and the integrity of the judiciary are critically involved in this matter.

He argued that a judge’s unilateral return to a case after recusal would likely foster a public perception of bias, thereby undermining the essential public trust in the judicial system.

The letter reads: “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.”

The letter released on Wednesday and made available to newsmen is titled, ‘Request for your lordship’s intervention in FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015 (Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Mazi Nnamdi Kanu)’.

It further reads: “We have approached the Chief Justice of the Federation to intervene with the Chief Judge of Federal High Court on the matter of proper reassignment of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s case to another Judge in Abuja or to transfer the case to South-East, where the offenses allegedly occurred and where all of our witnesses are located.

“We are Solicitors-of-Record to the Defendant (Mazi Nnamdi Kanu) in the above-referenced case pending before the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court. The said Defendant may hereafter be referred as our Client or the Defendant.

“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.

“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.

“Upon the receipt of the hearing notice, we wrote a Letter to the Honorable Chief Judge, protesting the reassignment of the case to the said recused Judge and, in the alternative, requesting for transfer of the case to the South-East (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 South-East is the place where the offenses were alleged to have had impact).

“In the meantime, 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.

“Your Lordship, for the avoidance of doubt, we are minded to respectfully call Your Lordship’s attention to the following, which are on point:

“In Okoduwa v. State (1988) NWLR (Pt. 76) 333, 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, in Rashidi v. Ministry of Health (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 133) 324, the court emphasized that judicial integrity requires that recusal decisions be final unless properly reviewed.

“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 decis 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. To be sure, the 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. In plain terms, a decision or an Order of recusal is akin to a decision on jurisdiction which cannot be reversed arbitrarily. In order words, a subsequent formal order (made with jurisdiction) – not a mere internal memo – is strictly required. In Ogboru V. Ibori (2005) 13 NWLR (Pt. 942) 319, it was pronounced that: “.. it is settled law that once a Court has delivered its decision on a matter, it becomes functus officio with regard to that matter. What this means is that a Court cannot sit as an appellate Court over its decision; once it has decided a matter, it ceases to be seised of it, and it cannot re-open it for any purpose whatsoever.

“To be sure, public perception and the integrity of the judiciary are at stake in this case. A Judge’s unilateral return to a case after recusal will surely create a public perception of partiality, thus eroding the much-cherished public confidence in the courts.

“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 South-East Nigeria.”