The detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has been unexpectedly summoned to appear before Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court on February 10, 2025.
This development has raised concerns among his legal team, as Justice Nyako had previously recused herself from the case in September 2024 following an oral application made by Kanu.
Kanu’s Special Counsel, Barrister Aloy Ejimakor, disclosed the development on Friday after a routine visit by the IPOB leader’s legal representatives and family members. He expressed surprise at the notice, stating that the legal team was caught off guard by the sudden summons and would attend the hearing with caution.
The legal battle surrounding Kanu’s trial has been ongoing, with jurisdictional disputes forming a key part of recent proceedings. In January 2025, his legal team filed an application requesting the transfer of the case from the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court to any division in the South-East region.
The application, dated January 30, 2025, was filed under Order 49, Rule 3 of the Federal High Court Rules 2019 and Section 45 of the Federal High Court Act. Kanu’s lawyers argued that following Justice Nyako’s recusal, the case was sent to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court for reassignment. However, no judge in the Abuja division agreed to take on the case, creating a legal deadlock.
The legal team stated that the case was eventually returned to Justice Nyako’s court, a move they strongly oppose. They argued that her recusal remains valid and legally binding, meaning she no longer has jurisdiction over the matter.
The lawyers emphasized that under legal principles, once a judge withdraws from a case, they cannot be reassigned to the same proceedings.
They described the situation as highly irregular and insisted that the only viable solution was to transfer the case to a Federal High Court division in the South-East, as the alleged offenses are linked to that region.
Kanu’s legal representatives further stated that keeping the case in Abuja contradicts legal precedent, citing the case of IBORI vs. FRN (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1128) 283, which they claim supports their argument for jurisdictional relocation. They warned that forcing Justice Nyako to handle the case despite her recusal could result in a grave miscarriage of justice and undermine the integrity of the proceedings.
The unexpected court summons has introduced fresh uncertainty into the trial.
With the February 10 hearing approaching, legal analysts suggest that Kanu’s defense team may escalate their opposition through an appeal or further legal motions.
Meanwhile, IPOB supporters and human rights organizations continue to monitor the case closely, expressing concerns over the fairness of Kanu’s prolonged detention and legal proceedings. As the court date nears, attention is focused on how the judiciary will address the latest legal impasse.
Be the first to comment