The Chief Judge of the Federal High Court of Nigeria, Justice John Tsoho, has turned down a request from Nnamdi Kanu, the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), seeking the reassignment of his case to a different judge. Kanu, who is facing seven counts of terrorism charges brought by the Nigerian government, had expressed a loss of confidence in Justice Binta Nyako, the presiding judge, prompting him to ask for her recusal.
At a hearing on 24 September, Kanu informed the court that he no longer believed he would get a fair trial under Justice Nyako, leading her to agree to step aside. She then sent the case file back to Justice Tsoho, the Chief Judge, for reassignment.
However, in a surprising turn of events, Justice Tsoho has now returned the file to Justice Nyako, rejecting Kanu’s plea for a new judge. He pointed out that Kanu’s case has already seen two previous judges recuse themselves, making the situation particularly complex. Justice Tsoho explained that the case, which dates back to 2015, has been handled predominantly by Justice Nyako, making her the most familiar with its intricacies. According to Tsoho, this continuity is vital for ensuring the case reaches a fair and timely conclusion.
In his ruling, Justice Tsoho outlined the next steps Kanu would need to take if he remains adamant about Justice Nyako’s recusal. “Nnamdi Kanu must file a written motion on notice, supported by an affidavit detailing the grounds for his request,” Tsoho said, adding that Kanu’s legal team would also need to serve the motion on the prosecution and present it before Justice Nyako herself. It will then be up to Justice Nyako to review and decide whether to step aside.
Aloy Ejimakor, Kanu’s counsel, confirmed the court’s decision and stated that the defense team is awaiting official notice from the court, as well as a new date for the next hearing. “We’ll proceed as required,” Ejimakor said, though it remains unclear whether Kanu’s team will continue to push for Justice Nyako’s removal.
The case, which has garnered widespread attention both domestically and internationally, raises critical questions about the fairness and transparency of Kanu’s trial. For years, the IPOB leader has been at the centre of a high-profile campaign for the independence of Biafra, a southeastern region of Nigeria, which has seen intermittent violent clashes with security forces. His detention has fuelled tensions in Nigeria, making the progress and outcome of his trial a matter of national importance.
Justice Nyako, who has overseen the case for the majority of its duration, has had to navigate numerous delays, legal complexities, and heightened political sensitivities. Kanu’s supporters view him as a political prisoner, while the Nigerian government insists that he is a criminal engaged in acts of terrorism. Justice Tsoho’s latest decision indicates a desire for procedural consistency, but it remains to be seen whether Kanu will accept this outcome or continue to press for further judicial intervention.
