Nigerian authorities are once again under fire following a dramatic twist in the trial of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB). A statement issued today by Kanu’s lead counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, has raised serious legal questions surrounding the proceedings of the Federal High Court that took place on February 10, 2025. The legal team contends that the court’s actions during the session are not just irregular—they are a “nullity.”
The dispute hinges on the presiding judge, Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako, who, according to Ejimakor, should no longer have been involved in Kanu’s case following a critical court order issued in September 2024. According to the legal team, the judge’s continued involvement in the case despite this order has rendered the recent hearing and the subsequent adjournment of Kanu’s trial invalid.
‘No Jurisdiction to Proceed’
Ejimakor’s strong condemnation of Justice Murtala-Nyako’s actions stems from a ruling in September 2024, in which the judge was formally recused from handling the trial. In a detailed statement issued after today’s court session, Ejimakor described the proceedings as an affront to justice, stating, “The Honourable Justice Murtala-Nyako, having been recused by an extant order of court, no longer possesses the requisite jurisdiction to conduct the hearing. Therefore, the court proceeding on Monday, February 10, 2025, is a nullity.”
The legal team has repeatedly argued that the recusal order was clear and unequivocal, making any further proceedings under the same judge unlawful. “The principle of functus officio stipulates that once a court has disposed of a matter, it cannot revisit it,” Ejimakor asserted, referencing multiple legal precedents that support their position.
In his statement, Ejimakor referred to several key cases, including Sanusi v. Ayoola (1992) and Mohammed v. Husseini (1998), which underscore the principle that once a judge has issued a decision, they are no longer competent to oversee any further actions related to that case. “A court cannot reopen a matter once it has rendered judgment, unless there is a statutory provision to the contrary,” Ejimakor noted.
A History of Judicial Controversies
The legal team’s objections are not just about procedural irregularities. They point to a broader pattern of alleged judicial misconduct and bias in Kanu’s case. The statement lists several contentious decisions made by Justice Murtala-Nyako during Kanu’s long-standing legal battle, including an order for Kanu’s detention in a high-security facility operated by the Department of State Services (DSS), despite the law’s clear preference for detention in regular prison facilities.
One of the most significant issues raised is the claim that Kanu was detained under conditions that violated his constitutional right to a fair trial. The statement asserts that Kanu’s earlier applications for transfer to a less restrictive facility were denied without proper consideration, which the legal team believes undermines the fairness of the trial.
Further complicating matters, Kanu’s legal team points to the 2021 hearing where he was remanded without his legal team’s presence, which they argue violated his constitutional rights. The legal team has repeatedly called for Kanu’s release, citing these legal missteps as evidence that the trial is fundamentally flawed.
The Petition Against Justice Murtala-Nyako
One of the most provocative claims made by Kanu’s legal team is that Kanu himself has filed a formal complaint against Justice Murtala-Nyako, accusing her of judicial misconduct. According to Ejimakor, the petition, filed on January 14, 2025, “should have automatically disqualified the judge from continuing to hear Kanu’s case.” The legal team argues that it would be a clear conflict of interest for a judge against whom a defendant has filed a complaint to continue presiding over their trial.
“It is a clear violation of natural justice and equity for a judge to preside over a case involving a party that has initiated a formal complaint against them,” Ejimakor remarked. This claim further complicates the already convoluted legal landscape surrounding Kanu’s detention and trial.
The Role of the Federal Government
At the heart of the legal team’s statement is a call for the Nigerian government to take responsibility for what they describe as an extended period of unlawful detention. Kanu has now been in detention for nearly four years without trial, and Ejimakor stresses that this delay is in violation of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, which mandates that criminal suspects be tried within a reasonable time frame.
“We are at a point where the Nigerian government has failed to bring Mazi Nnamdi Kanu to trial within a reasonable time,” Ejimakor said, calling for the immediate release of the IPOB leader. “The next responsible step is for the government to release him, either through the restoration of his bail or by discontinuing the case altogether.”
The statement goes on to suggest that the solution to this ongoing impasse lies in transferring Kanu’s case to a more competent court. Citing the lack of willingness from other judges in the Federal High Court’s Abuja division to take on the case, the legal team has proposed that the trial be moved to a court in the southeastern region of Nigeria, where the alleged offenses took place.
Ejimakor also pointed to a legal precedent from the case of former Delta State Governor James Ibori, which supports the transfer of cases when difficulties arise in securing a fair trial. “If no judge is willing to hear the case in Abuja, the logical step is to transfer it to the Southeast, where the trial should have been held in the first place,” Ejimakor said.
A Call for Justice
As Kanu’s legal team waits for the government’s response, they continue to build their case for the release of the detained leader. With mounting legal pressure and accusations of prolonged detention without trial, the legal team has called on the Federal Government to end what they describe as a politically motivated saga that has lasted nearly a decade.
“The ball is now in the court of the Nigerian government,” Ejimakor concluded, “It is time for the government to act responsibly and release Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, bringing this drawn-out injustice to an end.”
