The trial of Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has been indefinitely adjourned by the Federal High Court in Abuja. The adjournment came after Kanu reiterated his refusal to be tried before Justice Binta Nyako, insisting that his case be transferred to a court in the South-East. This latest development adds another layer of complexity to a legal saga that has been ongoing since 2015, with Kanu facing charges of treason and terrorism.

Kanu’s Objection to Justice Nyako’s Jurisdiction

Nnamdi Kanu has consistently expressed his lack of confidence in Justice Binta Nyako’s handling of his case. On September 24, 2024, he formally requested that she recuse herself, citing perceived bias and a lack of fairness. In response, Justice Nyako agreed to step down and forwarded the case file to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, for reassignment. However, Justice Tsoho later returned the case to Justice Nyako, stating that her extensive familiarity with the case made her the most suitable judge to continue presiding over it.

Despite this decision, Kanu has remained steadfast in his refusal to be tried before Justice Nyako. In a letter dated January 30, 2025, he argued that her recusal was binding and that she no longer had jurisdiction over his case. He further contended that since no other judge in the Abuja division was willing to take on the case, it should be transferred to a Federal High Court in the South-East. Kanu emphasized that the alleged offenses had a significant impact in the South-East, giving courts in that region superior jurisdiction over the matter.

Court Proceedings and Kanu’s Defiance

At the resumed hearing on Monday, February 10, 2025, the prosecution counsel, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), informed the court that the Federal Government was ready to proceed with the trial. He stated that witnesses were available and urged the court to set a trial date. However, Kanu, who was present in court, vehemently opposed the continuation of the trial before Justice Nyako.

“I do not recognize this court’s authority over me. I only honored the hearing notice out of respect for the rule of law. The Chief Judge’s decision to return my case to Justice Nyako is unacceptable,” Kanu declared. He accused the judge of bias and argued that the prosecution had no legal grounds to continue the case. Kanu’s counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, supported his client’s position, reiterating the demand for the case to be transferred to the South-East.

In response, Justice Nyako clarified that the Chief Judge had not accepted her recusal, which is why the case file was returned to her. She directed Kanu’s legal team to submit a formal written application if they wished to insist on her withdrawal from the case. Following this directive, she adjourned the matter indefinitely, leaving the future of the trial uncertain.

Background of the Case

Nnamdi Kanu’s legal troubles began in 2015 when he was first arrested upon his return to Nigeria from the United Kingdom. He was detained at the Kuje Correctional Facility and charged with treason and terrorism. In 2017, he was granted bail on health grounds but fled the country after an alleged military invasion of his hometown. The Nigerian government subsequently labeled him a fugitive.

In 2021, Kanu was re-arrested in Kenya and extradited to Nigeria. Since then, he has been held in the custody of the Department of State Services (DSS). Despite multiple applications for bail, transfer to Kuje Correctional Facility, or house arrest, the court has denied his requests, citing his previous flight from justice.

Kanu’s trial has been marked by numerous legal twists and turns. In April 2022, the court struck out seven of the eight charges against him for lack of merit. The Court of Appeal in Abuja later ordered his release and dismissed the remaining charges. However, the Federal Government challenged this ruling at the Supreme Court, which reversed the appeal court’s decision and ruled that Kanu still had a case to answer on the remaining seven counts.

Implications of the Adjournment

The indefinite adjournment of Kanu’s trial raises significant questions about the future of the case. Kanu’s insistence on a transfer to the South-East reflects his belief that he cannot receive a fair trial in Abuja. His supporters have long argued that the charges against him are politically motivated and that his continued detention is a violation of his rights.

The Federal Government, on the other hand, maintains that Kanu must face trial for his alleged offenses, which include incitement to violence and activities deemed threatening to national security. The government’s determination to prosecute Kanu underscores the high stakes involved in the case, which has become a flashpoint in the broader struggle for self-determination in the South-East.

A Prolonged Legal Battle

Nnamdi Kanu’s trial has become one of the most protracted and contentious legal battles in Nigeria’s recent history. The case has drawn widespread attention, both domestically and internationally, with human rights organizations and foreign governments calling for due process and respect for Kanu’s rights. The indefinite adjournment of the trial adds another chapter to this ongoing saga, leaving many to wonder when—or if—the case will ever reach a resolution.

As the legal and political drama continues to unfold, the fate of Nnamdi Kanu remains uncertain. His supporters remain steadfast in their demand for his release, while the Federal Government shows no signs of backing down. The outcome of this high-profile case will have far-reaching implications for Nigeria’s justice system, its approach to separatist movements, and its commitment to upholding the rule of law. For now, the nation watches and waits as the wheels of justice turn slowly in this deeply polarizing case.