The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Binta Nyako

  • You can’t withdraw from Kanu’s trial, Chief Judge tells Nyako

    You can’t withdraw from Kanu’s trial, Chief Judge tells Nyako

    • Rejects judge’s recusal request; returns trial file

    Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court Abuja is resuming the trial of the leader of the separatist group, the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) Nnamdi Kanu, a few weeks after recusing herself from the case.

    This followed the decision of the  Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho,to reject  Kanu’s recusal request.

    Tsoho has consequently directed  that the case file on the  trial be returned to Justice Nyako for her to continue hearing the case.

    Read Also: FACT-CHECK: Can CNG cars, trucks, vehicles explode?

    Justice Nyako recused herself from the case on September 24 after Kanu  demanded that she should hands off the case, claiming he no longer had confidence in the judge’s ability to ensure fair hearing.

    It was learnt that Justice Tsoho directed that Justice Nyako should continue to preside over the case on the condition that Kanu should file a formal application, supported with an affidavit, detailing reasons why he wants his trial to be conducted before another judge.

    By Justice Tsoho’s condition, the prosecution is also required to respond to Kanu’s application, following which Justice Nyako will  hear the application and give a ruling, deciding whether or not to withdraw.

    Justice Tsoho’s condition, it was gathered, was to prevent a repeat of what happened in the money laundering case involving the former Governor of Benue State, Gabriel Suswam, in which the Court of Appeal overruled Justice Ahmed Mohammed, who had withdrawn from the case.

    The Court of Appeal was of the view that Justice Mohammed did not withdraw properly because no proceedings were conducted for parties to address the court on whether or not the judge should withdraw.

    The September 24th  withdrawal by Justice Nyako is the third time a judge would be abandoning the case at the instance of the defendant.

    Kanu first appeared before the Federal High Court on December 23, 2015 in relation to the case.

    He was taken along with some others, before Justice Mohammed (now a Justice of the Court of Appeal).

    Before any steps could be taken in the case, Kanu objected to being tried before the judge, claiming he was not sure he could get justice.

    The judge subsequently withdrew from the case, following which it was reassigned to a new judge.

    On September 26, 2016, Kanu and his then co-defendants were taken  before Justice Tsoho (who was then the second most senior judge of the court).

    Justice Tsoho later withdrew from the case following a petition by Kanu’s lawyers to the National Judicial Council (NJC).

    In the petition, Kanu’s lawyers accused the judge of making conflicting decisions in an application by the prosecution to be allowed to shield its witnesses from public view, which they claimed would not guarantee fairness and justice for the defendants.

    Ruling on September 26, 2016, Justice Tsoho (who is now the court’s Chief Judge) returned the case file to the then Chief Judge, Justice Abdu Kafarati.

    The case was subsequently reassigned to Justice Nyako in 2016.

  • FG charges Ekweremadu, other with non-declaration of assets

    *Courts fix October 22, Nov 19 for arraignment

    *Okay substituted service of charges on them

    The Federal Government has filed two charges against the Deputy Senate President, Ike Ekweremadu and Senator Albert Bassey Akpan (Akwa Ibom North-East) for allegedly failing to declare some of their assets.

    The charges marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/62/2018 (for Ekweremadu) and FHC/ABJ/CR/88/2018 (for Akpan) were filed before the Federal High Court, Abuja on behalf of the Federal Government by the Special Presidential Investigation Panel (SPIP).

    The charge against Ekweremadu has been assigned to Justice Binta Nyako, while the one against Akpan is assigned to Justice John Tsoho.
    Both judges, on Wednesday, granted leave to the prosecution to serve the charges and other accompanying court documents on the defendants through the Clerk of the National Assembly.

    The order for substituted service was granted by both judges after listening to prosecution lawyer, Celsus Ukpong, who complained of difficulty in effecting personal service on the defendants.

    Justice Nyako adjourned to October 22 for arraignment, while Justice Tsoho adjourned to November 19 for arraignment.

    The two count-charge against Ekweremadu reads:

    ” That you, Ike Ekweremadu ‘M’ ‘on or about 28th day of March, 2018 being a public officer with the National Assembly Abuja within the jurisdisction of this honourable court, committed an offence to wit: refuse to declare your assets without reasonable excuse and upon the notice to declare your assets in the manner prescribed by the Special Presidential Investigation Panel for the Recovery of Public Property contrary and punishable under Section 3 (3)(1)a of the Recovery of Public Property (Special Provisions) Act 2004.

    “That you, Ike Ekweremadu ‘M’ on or about 28th day of March, 2018 being a public officer with the National Assembly Abuja within the jurisdiction of this court, committed an offence to wit: neglect to declare your assets without. reasonable excuse and upon the notice to declare your assets in the manner prescribed by the Special Presidential Investigation Panel for the Recovery of Public Property contrary and punishable under Section 3(3)(1)3 of the Recovery of Public Property (Special Provisions) Act 2004.”

    The charge against Akpan reads:

    “That you, Senator Albert Bassey Akpan ‘M’ on or about 12th day of April, 2018 being public officers with the National Assembly within the jurisdiction of this honourable court ,committed an offence to wit; refusal to declare your assets without reasonable excuse and upon notice to declare your assets before the Special Presidential Investigation Panel for the Recovery of Public Property, Abuja contrary to and punishable under Section 3 (3) (1) (a) of the Recovery of Public Property (Special Provision) Act 2004.

    “That you, Senator Albert Bassey Akpan ‘M’ on or about 12th day of April, 2018 being public officers with the National Assembly within the jurisdiction of this honourable court, committed an offence to wit: neglect to declare your assets without reasonable excuse and upon notice to declare your assets before the Special presidential Investigation Panel for the Recovery of Public Property, Abuja contrary to and punishable under Section 3(3)(1)(a) of the Recovery of Public Property (Special Provision) Act 2004.”

  • EFCC seeks transfer of cases from Justice Nyako

    Raises likelihood of bias

     

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has requested that cases involving it and its Acting Chairman, Ibrahim Magu be withdrawn from Justice Binta Nyako by the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court and handed to any other judge of the court.

    The request is contained in a letter by the EFCC, addressed to Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Adamu Kafarati.

    The EFCC said its request was informed by the need “To avoid bias and conflict of interest, because the commission is prosecuting the spouse and step son of His Lordship (Justice Nyako), namely; Admiral Murtala Nyako (rtd) and Senator Abdulazeez Nyako respectively.”

    Lawyer to the EFCC, Wahab Shittu, who wrote the letter, dated July 31, 2018, said he was acting based on a written instruction by Magu, dated July 30, 2018, demanding that the cases, numbering about 17 be reassigned.

    On Tuesday, Shittu drew the court’s attention to a fresh letter dated October 5, this year, which he authored and addressed to the Registrar of the court, reminding it about his earlier letter of July 31 to the Court’s Chief Judge.

    The October 5 letter reads:”Respectfully,  we write to draw His Lordship’s attention to our letter dated 31st July,  2018, addressed to the honourable Chief Judge of the Federal High Court conveying our client’s request to the Chief Judge to the Federal High Court that all matter concerning the subject matter above be transferred from this honourable court for reasons contained on our clients attaches letter.

    “Respectfully we tremble in requesting that out client’s position be respected in the interest of justice in this matter.

    “Kindly draw His Lordship attention to our clients ‘ predicament as expressed  in attached letter now receiving the consideration of His Lordship,  the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court.”

    The affected cases include:

    The matters in question are; Barr Bello Bakari vs. AGF; Abubakar Sani vs.the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria;  Jibrin Samuel Okutepa vs. President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and Lady Chidinma Udebani.

    Others are the Incorporated Trustees of Justice Mission International vs. AGF;  Barr Alia Jamilu vs. President, Federal Republic of Nigeria & 4 others; Emmanuel Esero vs. Ibrahim Magu;  the Registered Trustees of African Patriotic Youth Assembly vs. Ibrahim Magu & 6 others.

    Read Also: EFCC arraigns Saraki’s aide, others for alleged N3.5b fraud

    There are also the cases involving Wale Balogun vs. the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and 4 others;  Chijioke Kanu vs. AGF and Johnmary Chukwukasi Jideobi vs. the Senate of Federal Republic of Nigeria and 3 others be transferred.

    Most of the cases relate to the dispute over whether or not Magu could continue to occupy the headship of the EFCC without the confirmation of his nomination by the Senate.

    The court had, earlier in the year, upon a directive by the court’s Chief Judge, directed that all cases relating to the non-confirmation of Magu be transferred to Justice Nyako’s court for determination.

    When all the cases were all concentrated in her court by virtue of the Chief Judge’s directive, Justice Nyako, with the agreement of all lawyers in the case, elected to consolidate all the cases a render a single judgment that will bind all, because most of the issues were similar.

    Many lawyers in the case however expressed surprise on Tuesday on learning about EFCC’s request.

    They doubted EFCC’s reason for seeking the transfer of the case, but claimed the commission might have acted the way it did to prevent prompt determination of the cases.

    Justice Nyako has however adjourned the cases indefinitely.

  • IPOB: Court to try Kanu separately

    IPOB: Court to try Kanu separately

    Fixes Feb 28 for Abaribe, others to account for IPOB leader’s whereabouts

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has agreed to a separate trial for the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu.

    Justice Binta Nyako granted an application by the prosecution on Tuesday and ordered that Kanu’s trial be separated from those of his co-defendants.

    Kanu was in 2015 charged before the court with three others on treasonable felony charges.

    The others are the National Coordinator of IPOB, Chidiebere Onwudiwe; an IPOB member, Benjamin Madubugwu; and a former Field Maintenance Engineer seconded to the telecommunication company, MTN, David Nwawuisi.

    The court, in a ruling on April 25, 2017,  granted bail to Kanu, but rejected others’ bail application.

    Kanu has ceased to attend court, with his lawyer, Ifeanyi Ejiofor claiming he (Kanu) has been since some soldiers invaded his home in September last year.

    On Tuesday, his co-defendants (who are in prison custody) were brought to court, Kanu was absent.

    The development prompted the prosecution lawyer, Shuaibu Labaran to apply that the trial be separated to prevent further delay.

    Labaran noted that Kanu’s continued absence from court since he was granted bail in April 2017 has frustrated progress in the case

    He said: “In the circumstance, the prosecution shall be asking for the indulgence of your lordship to separate the trial so that progress can be made in this matter.”

    Lawyers to the defendants did not object to Labaran’s application, following which the trial judge, Justice Binta Nyako granted it.

    Justice Nyako agreed with the prosecution that there was the need to separate Kanu’s trial from the others in order “to meet the justice of the case”.

    Read Also: IPOB: No evidence Kanu is in Army’s custody — Court

    She said: “I hereby separate the trial of the first defendant from the rest of the defendants.”

    The judge also directed the prosecution to ensure that the charges were amended and served on the defendants before the next trial date.

    Upon complaint from Chukwudi Igwe, lawyer to another IPOB member, whose name has been added as defendant in an amended charge,  Bright Chimezie, Justice Nyako directed the prosecution to act on his case.

    Igwe had complained that the State Security Service was holding his client despite an order by a Federal High Court in Uyo, Akwa Ibom State, directing that he be released.

    He said, if by the next trial date the prosecution failed to reflect his client’s name in the fresh amendment to the charge, he would apply that the charge be struck out against Chimezie.

    The judge subsequently adjourned to March 20 for further proceedings

    Justice Nyako however adjourned to February 28 ( at noon) for Kanu’s three sureties, including Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe, to either produce the IPOB leader in court or show cause why each of them should not forfeit his N100m bail bond.

    The court had at the last proceedings on December 5, 2017, adjourned to yesterday for the sureties to explain why Kanu suddenly stopped attending court and account for his whereabouts.

    Abaribe has filed two application. One is asking the court to discharge him as surety to Kanu, while the other wants the court to inspect Kanu’s house in Abia State, where he was said to have been last seen.

  • Court orders Abaribe, others to produce Kanu

    Court orders Abaribe, others to produce Kanu

    The Federal High Court, Abuja on Tuesday ordered Senator Eyninnaya Abaribe, and two others standing as guarantors for the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra ( IPOB ), Nnamdi Kanu, to explain his whereabouts.

    It can be recalled that Nnamdi Kanu was granted bail by Justice Binta Nyako on April 24, 2017. However, Kanu did not show up for his trial which was billed to commence on Tuesday.

    However, Kanu’s co-defendants appeared in court.

    Out of the three sureties to Kanu, only Abaribe was present in court with his lawyer. Immanuel Shalum Okabenmabu and Tochukwu Uchendu were not only absent, but did not have legal representations.

    Mr. Ogechi Ogunna, who is the counsel to Abaribe said ‎his client had filed a motion seeking to be discharged as Kanu’s surety.

    The court stressed that Abaribe’s motion to be discharged as Kanu’s surety could not be heard until Nnamdi Kanu appeared in court.

    Justice Nyako presented Abaribe with three (3) options:

    1. Abaribe is to produce Nnamdi Kanu in court before he can apply to be discharged as a surety.
    2. He should be ready to forfeit his N100m bail bond.
    3. Lastly, he should request to be given time to produce the defendant in court.

    In response, Abaribe’s lawyer said that his client was in no position to do any of the above stated conditions.

    He however opted for the third option, which is to be given time to produce the defendant in court, after the judge insisted that his client must opt for one of the options.

    The trial was adjourned till November 20.

  • Court rules on Kanu’s bail application April 25

    Court rules on Kanu’s bail application April 25

    The Federal High Court sitting Abuja will on April 25 rule on whether or not the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu and three others, should be granted bail.

    Justice Binta Nyako gave the date after hearing arguments from counsel to Kanu and three co-defendants – Chidiebere Onwudiwe, Benjamin Madubugwu and David Nwawuisi.

    Counsel to Kanu, Ifeanyi Ejiofor, in his argument, told the court that the proof of evidence filed by the prosecution against his client was not strong enough to warrant his continued detention.

    He said the proof of evidence is empty and not strong enough to sustain the charge against his client, adding that his health is deteriorating.

    The counsel said, “We have attached nine exhibits to our application; one of them is an order of this court made by your learned colleague, Justice Adeniyi Ademola, that he be granted bail which has not been complied with.

    “We also attached a letter we wrote to the Controller-General of Prisons informing him of an attempt to terminate the life of the defendant.

    “Canisters of tear gas were left in his cell which he inhaled and this has affected his lungs and he can barely stand and if not released on bail, his health will get worse in prison.”

    He acknowledged that bail was at the discretion of the court, urging the judge to exercise the discretion in favour of his client in the most liberal terms.

    NAN