The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Kanu

  • Kanu: So long a trial

    Kanu: So long a trial

    Ten years after he was first arraigned on terrorism charges, the trial of  the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, will start de novo before a new judge. Deputy News Editor JOSEPH JIBUEZE reviews the case.

    Fireworks will resume again on March 21 before Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja in the trial of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB).

    The case was re-assigned to Justice Omotosho after Kanu insisted that Justice Binta Nyako stood recused.

    Justice Nyako had recused herself, but Chief Judge John Tsoho directed her to continue with the case, which Kanu rejected.

    It was learnt that hearing notices have been issued and dispatched to parties.

    It was also gathered that the case file and other documents have since been transferred to Justice Omotosho’s court, paving the way for the issuance of the hearing notices.

    Kanu is expected to be re-arraigned on the remaining seven counts in the treason charge preferred against him by the Federal Government.

    The Supreme Court, in a judgment on December 15, 2023, ordered Kanu to submit himself for trial on the remaining seven counts.

    In the judgment, the apex court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal discharging and acquitting Kanu.

    The apex court held that although he was illegally brought back to Nigeria from Kenya when he jumped bail, the development could not have divested the trial court of the jurisdiction to continue his trial.

    The allegations

    Kanu is alleged to have made a broadcast that was heard across Nigeria, in which he allegedly issued a threat that anyone who defied a sit-at-home order, should write his or her will.

    The prosecution alleged that Kanu’s broadcasts, made on different dates between 2018 and 2021, incited members of the public to attack Nigerian security personnel and their family members, among others.

    Read Also: Wike revokes 4,794 land titles over non-payment of ground rent in FCT

    The alleged offence is punishable under section 1(2)(h) of the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act, 2013.

    Kanu pleaded not guilty.

    A case laced with drama

    There was drama on February 10 when Justice Nyako adjourned indefinitely.

    She ruled after Kanu questioned her jurisdiction to further preside over his trial.

    Proceedings began when prosecuting counsel, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), said the prosecution was ready to proceed with the trial.

    Defence lawyer, Aloy Ejimakor, said the issue before the court was not about proceeding with the trial.

    Justice Nyako intervened and said although she had earlier recused herself from the case, Justice Tsoho turned down her decision.

    According to her, the CJ also directed that the defendant should file a formal motion asking for the reassignment of the case to another judge.

    While Awomolo and Ejimakor were arguing on whether or not a formal motion was necessary as directed by the CJ, Kanu, who had sat quietly in the dock, interjected and demanded to be allowed to speak.

    Asked by Justice Nyako whether it was his intention to take over the conduct of his case from his lawyer, Kanu said: “Yes, I want to take over.”

    Kanu said he only agreed to attend court because of the respect he has for the court.

    He argued that Justice Nyako no longer had the jurisdiction having recused herself.

    “I don’t recognise the authority of this court to preside over my case. Everything you (the judge) said here is meaningless to me. Why is it that when it comes to my case, everything is turned upside-down?”

    Kanu argued that the memo by the CJ returning the case file to Justice Nyako could not override the enrolled order of September 24 (with which Justice Nyako recused herself from the case.)

    When told by Justice Nyako that he was at liberty to appeal the directive of the CJ, Kanu said: “If the Chief Judge disagrees, he should appeal the decision.

    “You cannot preside over this case, not now, not today, not ever. You stand recused, and you must leave my case. I don’t need you in my case.

    “You are biased. Tell the Chief Judge that Nnamdi Kanu said so.

    “This is not a court of law. This is a shrine to injustice, and I will not subject myself to it.”

    Ruling, Justice Nyako said: “The only decision I can make right now is that in the light of what is happening now in court, I am going to adjourn this case sine die (indefinitely).”

    Reacting to the judge’s pronouncement, Kanu again said: “You have no jurisdiction to adjourn anything. None whatsoever.

    “You cannot make an order without jurisdiction. The memo from the Chief Judge cannot confer jurisdiction upon you.”

    Day Justice Nyako recused self

    Justice Nyako earlier withdrew from the trial midway on September 24.

    Ejimakor had urged the court to adjourn, claiming that his client was denied the opportunity to adequately prepare for his defence.

    But, before he could conclude his submission, Kanu rose and asked his lawyer to sit.

    The defendant said: “Sit down! I say you should sit down.”

    Turning to the judge, he said: “My lord, I have no confidence in this court anymore and I ask you to recuse yourself because you did not abide by the decision of the Supreme Court.

    “I can understand it if the DSS (Department of State Services) refuse to obey a court order, but for this court to refuse to obey an order of the Supreme Court is regrettable. I am asking you to recuse yourself from this case.”

    Kanu read a portion of the Supreme Court judgment where it found that actions of the trial court “rendered the impartiality of the judge suspect.”

    He said: “But my lord, you know that I love you. It is just that this court is allowing the prosecution to railroad me into a trial that is at variance with every provision of the Constitution.”

    Justice Nyako then said: “I hereby recuse myself and remit the case file back to the Chief Judge.”

    A history of recusals

    Kanu was first taken before Justice Ahmed Mohammed (now a Justice of the Court of Appeal) on December 23, 2015.

    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 withdrew from the case, following which it was reassigned.

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

    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 (now the Chief Judge) returned the case file to the then Chief Judge, Justice Ibrahim Auta.

    The case was subsequently reassigned to Justice Nyako in 2016.

    Demand for Kanu’s release

    There have been demands for a political settlement of the terrorism charge against Kanu.

    Southeast governors had resolved to meet with President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to demand Kanu’s release.

    “We resolved to engage with the Federal Government to secure the release of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu,” they said after a meeting in Enugu last year, but whether they met the President and the outcome remains unknown.

    Senators from the region also met with the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) Lateef Fagbemi (SAN).

    They urged him to enter a nolle-prosequi in Kanu’s case as a way of ending the tension and tackling insecurity in the Southeast. The lawmakers were led by Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe.

    “The Senators, governors, clergy, business and traditional rulers are willing to stand surety for him.

    “He has also assured me that he is ready to fulfil any condition that will lead to his early release,” Abaribe said.

    The Southeast caucus of the House of Representatives had also appealed to President Tinubu to consider releasing Kanu.

    Their demand was contained in a statement signed by Deputy Speaker Benjamin Kalu; Deputy Minority Whip George Ozodinobi; leader of the caucus Enwo Igariwey; Deputy Leader Nnolim Nnaji and Secretary Miriam Onuoha.

    Whether President Bola Ahmed Tinubu will heed the calls remains to be seen.

    Former President Muhammadu did not heed pleas by Southeast leaders to order the termination of Kanu’s case before his tenure ended.

    The former President-General, Emmanuel Iwuanyanwu, before he died, pleaded for Kanu’s release.

    Iwuanyanwu’s predecessor, the late Prof George Obiozor, had also called on Buhari to free Kanu.

    “We appeal to President Buhari to exercise his prerogative of mercy for Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and other Igbo youths in detention in various places,” Obiozor pleaded.

    Killings, violence, sit-at-home enforcement

    IPOB aims to restore the defunct Republic of Biafra, which seceded from Nigeria in 1967 prior to the Nigerian Civil War and was subsequently dissolved following its defeat in 1970.

    Since 2021, IPOB and other Biafran separatist groups have been fighting a low-level guerilla conflict in the Southeast against the Nigerian government.

    The group was founded in 2012 by Kanu.

    Kanu was first arrested in 2015 but was granted bail in April 2017.

    He fled the country after an invasion of his home in Afara-Ukwu, near Umuahia, Abia State, by the military in September of that year.

    He was re-arrested in Kenya and brought back to Nigeria in June 2021, about four years after he fled the country.

    The Court of Appeal, Abuja, held that the IPOB leader was extra-ordinarily renditioned to Nigeria and that the action was a flagrant violation of the country’s extradition treaty and also a breach of his fundamental human rights.

    The court, therefore, struck out the terrorism charges filed against Mr Kanu and ordered his release from the custody of the SSS.

    The Federal Government appealed and obtained an order staying the execution of the court judgment at the Supreme Court.

    A five-member panel of the Supreme Court, led by Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, declared that Kanu’s forcible repatriation from Kenya to Nigeria was illegal.

    However, the court, in the lead judgment by Tijjani Abubakar, ruled that no law prohibits the use of “illegally obtained evidence for the trial of a defendant.”

    The highest court held: “Our law is that evidence illegality obtained is valid before the court.”

    The Supreme Court held no legislation provides that a trial should stop where the prosecution does something illegal against the defendant while standing trial.

    “There is a civil remedy,” Justice Abubakar stated.

    IPOB had declared sit-at-home in the Southeast every Monday to press home its demand for Kanu’s release. It also called for a sit-out each day Kanu’s trial comes up for hearing, although the exercise is now on the wane.

    The exercise was usually accompanied by killings and attacks on properties and assets, forcing residents to comply and harming the region’s booming Monday trade in major Southeast cities of Nnewi, Aba and Onitsha.

    This newspaper’s delivery van was once burnt along with its consignment on a Monday in the Southeast.

    ‘If I were outside, nobody can try this’

    The IPOB leader once denounced the sit-at-home and violence, saying: “Anybody committing a crime cannot go free. I swear it. Anybody committing a crime in the East cannot go free.

    “They are doing it because I am in the DSS (custody). If I were to be outside, nobody could try this.

    “They know if Nnamdi Kanu is outside, in two minutes this nonsense will stop. Who is the bagger or idiot that will speak when I am talking?

    “That, I will give an order in the East, who is the idiot that will counter it? Nobody can.

    “I am Nnamdi Kanu. Rubbish! Anybody involved in any form of violence in the East in the name of IPOB is a goner and they know it.

    “Let me come out of this mess, only two minutes, there will be peace in the East.”

    How the trial has lingered

    Kanu’s interlocutory appeal had gone up to the Supreme Court, which faulted the invasion of his home by the military when he was granted bail by the trial court.

    The Supreme Court noted that if Kanu ran away as a result of the life-threatening invasion of his home, he should not be blamed.

    “That is where we found the revocation of his bail as totally wrong and unfair.

    “Remember that Nigeria has barely recovered from the case of Umaru Dikko.

    “Despite all that, we found that the Court of Appeal was wrong to hold that the trial court no longer has jurisdiction over the trial,” Justice Agim said.

    The case has also been delayed due to motions by Kanu asking for bail on health grounds, or that he should be placed under house arrest in any part of Abuja as the DSS was tormenting him.

    On another day, Ejimakor said his client was not ready for trial because his current condition was not suitable for him to prepare for his defence.

    Justice Nyako cried out: “It is either we open this trial or I adjourn this matter indefinitely till you are ready.”

    Will AGF exercise his nolle powers?

    Will progress be made when Kanu is re-arraigned before Justice Omotosho? Will the Federal Government enter a nolle prosequi – the formal entry on the record by the prosecution to cause a cessation of a criminal proceeding and with the effect that the case shall not be prosecuted further?

    How Kanu’s case eventually ends is one no one can predict.

  • Now that Kanu has a new judge

    Now that Kanu has a new judge

    Detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) Nnamdi Kanu must be feeling victorious following the reassignment of his trial to another judge based on his demand.  He had declared dramatically in court on February 10 that the decision of the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court to return his case to Justice Binta Nyako was “unacceptable.”

    His lawyer, Aloy Ejimakor, in a statement on March 8, said the defence team had “received two separate official letters regarding his case,” describing the letters as “momentous.”  He stated that one letter was from the Chief Justice of Nigeria “responding to a recent letter we had written to her, seeking her prompt administrative intervention (as the administrative head of the Nigerian judiciary) on the matter of a proper and lawful reassignment of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s case, following the recusal of the judge that was conducting it.” The other letter, he said, was from the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, “informing us that the case has been reassigned to another judge of the Federal High Court.”

    Kanu was first arrested in October 2015 and granted bail in April 2017 in the course of his trial for “alleged offences of conspiracy to commit acts of treasonable felony and other related offences.” His group is known for using terroristic methods in its fight for an independent “Biafra land” made up of Nigeria’s five Southeast states and parts of the South-south geo-political zone.

    Read Also: Lagos GDP hits $259bn, becomes Africa’s second largest city economy

     He fled the country in September 2017 following “Operation Python Dance,” a military exercise in the Southeast during which “rampaging soldiers” allegedly invaded his house in Afara-Ukwu Ibeku, Umuahia, Abia State. He was re-arrested in Kenya and brought back to Nigeria in June 2021, about four years after he mysteriously disappeared from the country. 

    Kanu remains lawfully detained, contrary to his oft-repeated claim that his detention is unlawful.  The Supreme Court had reversed his acquittal and the order for his release by the Court of Appeal.

    It is noteworthy that two other judges were previously recused from the case. Now that he has his wish, he needs to understand that there is a limit to demanding a judge’s recusal. How many judges could he reject, assuming he were allowed to? 

    His conduct suggests that he believes he has the right to decide which judge should try him. Indeed, his letter to the authorities, dated January 30, 2025, seeking that his case be moved to the Southeast, ahead of the continuation of his trial in February, demonstrated his unrealistic sense of entitlement. Is it possible that he believes he would receive a favourable judgment in the Southeast? He needs to be reminded that he is facing a trial, and he is not in charge.

  • Kanu: New judge to issue hearing notice before Friday 

    Kanu: New judge to issue hearing notice before Friday 

    …Court fault report on new judge’s withdrawal 

    The new judge of the Federal High Court, Abuja to whom the treason trial of self acclaimed leader of the separatist group, the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu is assigned may issue hearing notices to parties before the week runs out.

    The Nation learnt that the case has now been re-assigned by the Chief Judge of the court, Justice John Tsoho from Justice Binta Nyako to Justice James Omotosho.

    It was not clear as at Tuesday if the case file had been transmitted to the new judge’s court. 

    Hearing notices and other relevant information could only be communicated to parties after the new court is seised of the case file, a source told the Nation.

    Meanwhile, the court’s Chief Registrar, Sulaiman Hassan has faulted resorts that the new judge, to which Kanu’s trial is assigned, has withdrawn.

    Hassan, in a statement on Tuesday, described the report as false and misleading.

    Part of the statement reads: “The Court unequivocally refutes the false and misleading report, alleging that the Honourable the Chief Judge, the Hon. Justice John T. Tsoho, OFR has stepped down from Nnamdi Kanu’s case and made statements regarding the legality of his arrest. 

    Read Also: Chief Judge reassigns Nnamdi Kanu’s case

    “This claim is entirely unfounded, fictitious, grossly mischievous, damaging in intent and should be disregarded in its entirety.

    “The true position is that the Honourable Justice Tsoho, in his capacity as Chief Judge, has reassigned Nnamdi Kanu’s case from Honourable Justice Binta Nyako to another (‘new’) Judge.

    “The report referred to, is therefore, totally spurious.

    The defense team should hence prepare to receive instructions regarding the case, as may be issued by the new judge.

    “The Federal High Court strongly cautions against deliberate misinformation to mislead the public and erode confidence in the judicial system.

    “We urge the general public to be wary and rely only on verified information from official Court sources.

    “The court remains steadfast in upholding justice through due process of the law.

    Any further inquiries should be directed to the Court’s Information Department.”

  • Kanu’s stop-start trial

    Kanu’s stop-start trial

    A viral video captured the intensity of the conflict between Biafra separatist champion Nnamdi Kanu and Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court in Abuja.  “I do not recognise this court’s authority over me,” Kanu declared forcefully in court, on February 10. “I only honoured 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.”

    The conflict is sustained by both sides: the detained leader of the proscribed separatist group, Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), and the Nigerian judiciary. Kanu, in September 2024, had requested Justice Nyako to recuse herself from his trial, citing a lack of confidence in her handling of the case. Consequently, the judge had forwarded the case file to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, for reassignment.

     However, Justice Tsoho seemingly complicated the matter by returning the case to Justice Nyako, on the grounds that she was best suited to continue handling the trial. Notably, he observed that two other judges were previously recused from the case. He directed that if at the next hearing of the case, Kanu still insists on recusing Justice Nyako, he must file a written motion on Notice, with an affidavit, stating all the grounds for requesting the recusal, for her review and determination, then she can make her decision. Justice Nyako’s earlier recusal was based on an oral application by Kanu and his lawyer. 

    Why didn’t she ask for a written request before deciding to recuse herself from the trial in the first place? Does her withdrawal following an oral application make it any less binding? Interestingly, after explaining at the resumed hearing that the chief judge had rejected her recusal, she directed Kanu’s counsel to submit a formal written application if they wished to insist on her withdrawal.  She adjourned the matter indefinitely.

    There are unavoidable questions: Following a written request for her recusal, could she reverse the decision she made based on an oral request? Wouldn’t such a reversal be suspicious?  Can the chief judge compel another judge to continue the trial?

    While Justice Nyako’s familiarity with the case dates back to its beginning, this is not a compelling reason to keep her on the case in the face of Kanu’s objection. To stretch the argument, if Justice Nyako was unable to continue the case because of incapacitation, for instance, the chief judge would have had to choose another judge for the trial. Perhaps her conscious recusal should have been allowed to stand, particularly because it helped to project her detachment.

    Kanu himself must be aware that there is a limit to demanding a judge’s recusal. How many judges could he reject, even if allowed, before being ridiculed? His conduct suggests that he believes he has the right to decide which judge should try him. Indeed, his letter to the authorities, dated January 30, 2025, seeking that his case be moved to the Southeast, ahead of the continuation of his trial in February, demonstrated his unrealistic sense of entitlement.  He needs to be reminded that he is facing a trial, and he is not in charge.

     He wrote: “Since Justice Nyako’s recusal is binding, she no longer has jurisdiction over my case. Given that no other judge in the Abuja division is willing to take it, the only viable option is to transfer the matter to any division of the Federal High Court in the South-East, particularly since the alleged offences have an impact in the South-East (not Abuja). This gives the South-East divisions superior jurisdiction compared to Abuja.” Is it possible that he believes he would receive a favourable judgment   in the Southeast?

    Read Also: Kanu rejects judge again, court adjourns case indefinitely

    He was first arrested in October 2015 and granted bail in April 2017 in the course of his trial for “alleged offences of conspiracy to commit acts of treasonable felony and other related offences.”

    He fled the country in September 2017 following “Operation Python Dance,” a military exercise in the Southeast during which “rampaging soldiers” allegedly invaded his house in Afara-Ukwu Ibeku, Umuahia, Abia State.

     He had reappeared in Israel a year later, in October 2018. He had grabbed the headlines yet again with a tweet in January 2019, saying, “I am back in the UK to continue our excellent work to liberate #Biafra from the pit of darkness, Nigeria.”

    He was re-arrested in Kenya and brought back to Nigeria in June 2021, about four years after he mysteriously disappeared from the country.  

    His group is known for using terroristic methods in its fight for an independent “Biafra land” made up of Nigeria’s five Southeast states, and parts of the South-south geo-political zone. In 2020, IPOB illegally launched its Eastern Security Network (ESN), which it described as “a vigilance group.”

    But there are signs that IPOB has become a Frankenstein monster beyond the control of those who created it. This makes the group more dangerous. For instance, at some point, when Finland-based Biafra campaigner Simon Ekpa entered the picture there was strong evidence of divisions within the group as zealous enforcers ignored Kanu’s disclaimer, and violently implemented Ekpa’s controversial order that Southeast residents should stay at home from December 9 to 14, 2022.

    It is ironic that some campaigners for Kanu’s release see him as a solution to insecurity in the Southeast. On February 5, some days before the resumed court hearing, members of the House of Representatives Committee on South East Development Commission (SEDC) called for his release. The committee’s chairman, Chris Nkwonta, at its inaugural meeting was reported saying his release would be “a step towards lasting peace and development in the Southeast.” Deputy Speaker Benjamin Kalu, at the same event, also said his release “will ensure more security for our people and spring up development that this SEDC is going to bring.”

    These campaigners and others want him to be released without concluding his trial. Some have called the approach “a political solution.” The solution must be justice-based.  

     From all indications, insecurity in the Southeast is mainly due to IPOB’s activities, and it would require a reformed Kanu to reform the group. The question of leadership and control of the group is critical. Ekpa’s activities showed that it should not be taken for granted that Kanu is in charge.  So, it is uncertain that Kanu’s release will help to put an end to insecurity in the region. Ultimately, the authorities must demonstrate capacity to uphold law and order in the Southeast.

    Kanu remains lawfully detained, contrary to his oft-repeated claim that his detention is unlawful.  The Supreme Court had reversed his acquittal and the order for his release by the Court of Appeal. But his trial is taking too long.

  • Kanu rejects judge again, court adjourns case indefinitely

    Kanu rejects judge again, court adjourns case indefinitely

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has adjourned indefinitely further proceedings in the treason trial of the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu.

    Justice Binta Nyako ruled yesterday after Kanu questioned the judge’s jurisdiction to further preside over his trial.

    The prosecuting counsel, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), said the prosecution filed and served all necessary documents and was ready to proceed with the trial.

    Defence lawyer, Aloy Ejimakor, said the issue before the court was not about proceeding with the trial.

    Justice Nyako intervened and said although she had earlier recused herself from the case, the Chief Judge turned down her decision to withdraw from the case.

    According to her, the CJ also directed that the defendant should file a formal motion asking for the reassignment of the case to another judge.

    While Awomolo and Ejimakor were arguing on whether or not a formal motion was necessary, as directed by the Chief Judge, Kanu, who had sat quietly in the dock, suddenly interjected and demanded to be allowed to speak.

    Asked by Justice Nyako whether it was his intention to take over the conduct of his case from his lawyer, Kanu said: “Yes, I want to take over.”

    The defendant said he only agreed to attend court because of the respect he has for the court.

    He argued that Justice Nyako no longer has the jurisdiction to preside over his trial since she earlier recused herself from the case in September last year.

    Kanu then turned to the prosecuting lawyer saying: “A grown-up man like you, who should be in the village and, who should be making sure that things are done properly is here subverting the law.”

    He then returned his attention to the judge and said: “I don’t recognise the authority of this court to preside over my case.

    “Everything you (the judge) said here is meaningless to me. Why is it that when it comes to my case, everything is turned upside-down?”

    Kanu argued that the memo by the CJ returning the case file to Justice Nyako, cannot override the enrolled order of the court made on September 24 (with which Justice Nyako recused herself from the case.)

    When told by Justice Nyako that he was at liberty to appeal the directive of the CJ, Kanu said: “If the Chief Judge disagrees, he should appeal the decision.

    Read Also: BREAKING: Justice Nyako resumes Nnamdi Kanu’s trial amid recusal dispute

    “You cannot preside over this case, not now, not today, not ever. You stand recused, and you must leave my case. I don’t need you in my case.

    “You are biased. Tell the Chief Judge that Nnamdi Kanu said so.

    “This is not a court of law. This is a shrine to injustice, and I will not subject myself to it.”

    Awomolo asked the court to fix a date for trial, adding: “In view of the fact that the defendant has indicated that he will not make a formal application, I apply that your lordship gives us a definite date be fixed for trial.”

    Before the prosecuting lawyer could conclude his submission, Kanu said: “Because of money they are paying you from the AGF’s office, a grown-up man like you is here supporting evil.

    “The rule of law says you should go on appeal.

    “The same Chief Judge, writing this stupid memo, I have recused him before. I took him to NJC and recused him.

    “Why is he insisting on this one? He wants to embarrass your lordship by asking her to sit on this case.”

    Ruling, Justice Nyako said: “The only decision I can make right now is that in the light of what is happening now in court, I am going to adjourn this case sine die (indefinitely).”

    Reacting to the judge’s pronouncement, Kanu again said: “You have no jurisdiction to adjourn anything. None whatsoever.

    “You cannot make an order without jurisdiction. The memo from the Chief Judge cannot confer jurisdiction upon you.”

    Kanu first appeared before the Federal High Court on December 23, 2015.

    He was taken before Justice Ahmed 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 withdrew from the case, following which it was reassigned.

  • DSS blocked visitors access to Kanu, lawyers allege

    DSS blocked visitors access to Kanu, lawyers allege

    Aloy Ejimakor, counsel for Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, yesterday alleged that the Department of State Services (DSS) has isolated Kanu from all visitors.

    In a statement on behalf of Kanu’s legal team, the lawyer said the isolation violated subsisting court orders.

    “The State Security Service (DSS or SSS) blocked the legal team of Mazi Kanu from seeing him when we went to its headquarters in Abuja on a routine visitation to him, pursuant to court-ordered visitation regimen,” Ejimakor said.

    According to him, the DSS has not allowed any visitors to see Kanu since his last court appearance on September 24 when he demanded the recusal of Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako from the case.

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

    The statement adds: “It is now becoming increasingly clear that this latest unconstitutionality emanating from the DSS has a direct nexus to Mazi Kanu’s successful recusal of Justice Nyako, even as the recusal was subsequently vacated by the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

    “We wish to go on the record to recall that, in the recent past when the DSS had also violated terms of the court-ordered visitations, we levied applications before the Federal High Court to enforce their compliance but the applications have, to this day, not been scheduled for hearing.

    “This anomaly leaves the uncanny impression that the DSS is above the law or even above the constitution and the courts.

    “The DSS should know that one of the reasons for the court-ordered visitations is for Mazi Kanu’s relatives and lawyers to occasionally interact with him and have proof of his life and wellbeing.

    “Thus, now that the DSS has totally blocked all access to Mazi Kanu, one might ask: What is the DSS hiding? Is Mazi Nnamdi Kanu hale and hearty?”

    The DSS could not be reached for comments.

  • Thrill as ex-Eagles Kanu, Onyekachi, others set to ignite Lekki Astro League

    Thrill as ex-Eagles Kanu, Onyekachi, others set to ignite Lekki Astro League

    The third edition of the Lekki Astro League Cup, which is coming up on October 20, 2024, promises to be an exciting and thrilling experience, says the President of Lekki Astro Sports Club, Haliru Momodu.

    The football enthusiast with more than two decades banking experience is equally excited that the annual ritual, which foster community bonding, and networking amongst members is unique in its design for football players from 35 and above.

    He said: “Lekki Astro League Cup is designed for players aged 35 and above in an atmosphere of fun and fitness. While it might shift focus away from younger players, it creates an exciting environment where seasoned athletes can come together for the love of the game. Beyond the competition, it offers a relaxed space for veterans to mentor younger athletes, sharing their experience and knowledge in a more casual setting. It also sparks renewed interest in sports by showing that staying active and fit is possible at any age. Ultimately, the success of the league will depend on how well it fosters camaraderie and enjoyment while promoting a lifelong commitment to fitness.”

    Momodu revealed that the league has attracted ex-internationals like Super Eagles players Ogbonna Kanu and Onyekachi Okonkwo alongside other professionals home and abroad.

    Read Also: Titanic battles across NPFL centres  as 3SC, Enyimba face-off in Ibadan

    “Participation is strictly for members, with teams owned by them. If anyone is interested in joining us, they are welcome to reach out, and we’ll explain what it takes to become a member.”

    While the initial challenges of planning and training facilities have been taken care of, he said it was essential to give this year’s competition the publicity it deserves and to do even better in the future.

    “This edition is being sponsored by Nigerian Breweries Plc through one of its brands, Goldberg Larger. When we refer to individual sponsors, we mean our members who are buying slots to own teams to market their brands, which also promote their businesses. Companies will sponsor the tournament without owning a team. I believe next year’s edition will be even greater, as this is part of our ongoing efforts. Lekki is an ideal location for hosting the League Cup in 2024 due to its vibrant sports culture and community engagement. The area is known for its enthusiastic sports fans, which will create an energetic atmosphere during the event. Moreover, Holden Park School, our home ground, offers excellent facilities that are well-suited for sporting events, featuring quality playing fields and necessary amenities for players and fans alike. This familiar setting will help foster a sense of community and support among participants,” added Momodu.

  • Third judge withdraws from IPOB leader Kanu’s trial

    Third judge withdraws from IPOB leader Kanu’s trial

    Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court in Abuja yesterday withdrew from the treason trial of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader Nnamdi Kanu.

    She is the third judge to give up the case midway into the trial.

    The judge announced her withdrawal shortly after Kanu demanded that she recuse herself.

    Kanu’s lawyer Alloy Ejimakor urged the court to adjourn, claiming that his client was denied the opportunity to adequately prepare for his defence.

    But, before Ejimakor could conclude his submission, Kanu rose and asked his lawyer to sit.

    The defendant said: “Sit down! I say you should sit down.”

    Then, turning to the judge, he said: “My lord, I have no confidence in this court anymore and I ask you to recuse yourself because you did not abide by the decision of the Supreme Court.

    “I can understand it if the DSS (Department of State Services) refuse to obey a court order, but for this court to refuse to obey an order of the Supreme Court is regrettable.

    “I am asking you to recuse yourself from this case.”

    Prosecuting counsel, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), urged the court to ignore Kanu and proceed with the trial.

    Awomolo noted that contrary to Kanu’s claim, the Supreme Court ordered that the defendant (Kanu) should be tried on the seven counts left in the 11 counts contained in the original charge on which he was first arraigned.

    He said: “The Justices (of the Supreme Court) ordered this court to proceed with the hearing of the charge against the defendant.

    Read Also: Tinubu administration prioritises citizens’ trust – Bala Usman

    “My lord, you should not recuse yourself on the basis of this mere observation, which does not have anything to do with the Supreme Court.

    “It is an incompetent observation.

    “We urge this court to proceed with the hearing.”

    Kanu, again, stood up and held out a document he claimed was the subsisting judgment of the Supreme Court.

    Without seeking and obtaining the judge’s permission, Kanu read a portion of the document where he said the Supreme Court found that actions of the trial court in the case “rendered the impartiality of the judge suspect.”

    Kanu then, said: “But my lord, you know that I love you.

    “It is just that this court is allowing the prosecution to railroad me into a trial that is at variance with every provision of the Constitution.”

    The defendant then sat down, following which Justice Nyako expressed displeasure about his conduct.

    The judge subsequently announced her decision to withdraw from the case.

    She said: “I hereby recuse myself and remit the case file back to the Chief Judge.”

  • Kanu’s endless treason trial

    Kanu’s endless treason trial

    With Justice Binta Nyako’s withdrawal from the treason trial of Nnamdi Kanu, the end of the case, which began in 2015 may be far from sight.

    This is because the case will be reassigned to a new judge by the Chief Judge John Tsoho within a time to be determined by him.

    Defence counsel Alloy Ejimakor justified his client’s decision to demand that Justice Nyako recuse herself from the case.

    He said the defence was not sure of a fair trial because the state has allegedly refused to provide the defendant with the needed opportunity to adequately prepare for his defence.

    Justice Nyako’s withdrawal made it 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 Ahmed 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 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 another judge, 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).

    Read Also: Tinubu administration prioritises citizens’ trust – Bala Usman

    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 Chief Judge) returned the case file to the then Chief Judge, Justice Ibrahim Auta.

    The case was subsequently reassigned to Justice Binta Nyako in 2016.

    By yesterday’s development, progress in the case now depends on how soon the case is reassigned.

    Kanu will also be expected to take his plea before a new judge, and a fresh round of applications for bail and remand will be considered.

    Unless there is an intervention from outside the court system, such as the Attorney General entering a Nolle prosequi (no more prosecution), there appears to be no end in sight to the Kanu case anytime soon.

    Will the Federal Government consider a political solution and discontinue the case?

    Some Igbo leaders have been making moves for a settlement, including Ohanaeze Ndigbo and Southeast governors.

  • Release Kanu, Ohanaeze begs Tinubu

    Release Kanu, Ohanaeze begs Tinubu

    The Ohanaeze Ndigbo has appealed to President Bola Tinubu to release Nnamdi Kanu to abate tension in the Southeast.

    According to the group, the insecurity being witnessed in the Southeast is a result of Kanu’s incarceration.

    The body also faulted the statement by the president’s Senior Special Adviser on Information and strategy, Bayo Onanuga, against Peter Obi.

    Ohanaeze, therefore, appealed to the president to caution some of his aides, saying the Southeast will not partake in the planned protest in August.

    Vice President of Ohanaeze Ndigbo, Chief Damian Okeke-Ogene, said Onanuga’s utterances were capable of undermining the country’s democracy.

    Read Also: Reps minority caucus advocates political solution to end Nnamdi Kanu’s detention

    He called on Igbo not to join the planned protest, but protect their property wherever they reside because they might be the targeted for attacks during the protest.

    Okeke-Ogene added: “Onanuga did it to give Igbo a bad name. He specifically wants to incite other tribes to loot the property of Igbo people across the country if there is any protest.

    “I therefore call on our people to be vigilant because they are victims of hatred. And it is time the President spoke to his aides to be cautious about their utterances because tensions are high in the country. We don’t want what is happening in Kenya to happen in Nigeria.”

    He also lamented the level of insecurity in the country, lamenting a situation where people, including security operatives, are killed and government not doing much to stop it.

    “Nigerians are dying because of insecurity which is not limited to any part, and if government is not doing enough to end it, the impression people have is that government is sponsoring it. Imagine soldiers and policemen are being killed and nothing is being done,” Okeke-Ogene said.

    He urged Mr. President to order Kanu’s immediate release, saying doing so would help reduce insecurity in the Southeast.