Kanu
Tony Ezimakor, Abuja
Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has filed a petition before the Chief Justice of Nigeria , Kudirat Kekere Ekun, seeking her intervention in his trial that has stalled since 2015 in federal high court.
Kanu through his counsel, Barr Alloy Ejimakor is seeking the administrative intervention of her Lordship directing the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court to abide
by the law and assign Kanu’s case for trial “to a Court Judge that possesses the requisite
jurisdiction”.
Recall that the detained IPOB leader had in his last appearance vowed never to appear before any court or judge who lacks the jurisdiction to hear his case, as he had previously maintained that Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the case having on record recused himself of the case.
Giving background to the case, Ejimakor stated that :
*”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 judicial
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.See ANNEXURES 3 and 4.
*” 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.See ANNEXURES 5.
*”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 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).See ANNEXURES 6.
*”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.
See ANNEXURES 7.
*”Despite the foregoing,the said Honourable Judge neither responded to our said Letter
(Annexure 6),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.”
Citing different authorities, including rulings of the supreme Court, the petitioner maintained that Justice Nyako cannot return to the case having recused himself, and that doing so would harm the integrity of the court.
“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.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.In plain terms,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 can not 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”, he stressed.
Kanu therefore requested for the CJN’s administrative intervention to preserve the fast waning public trust in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
