The decision of Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court in Abuja to continue presiding over the trial of the detained leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu, despite recusing herself from the case earlier, has elicited varied reactions from legal practitioners in the country.
It will be recalled that Kanu, who is facing a seven-count treasonable felony charge the Federal Government initiated against him, had in the open court, challenged the legal propriety of allowing Justice Nyako to conduct his trial.
According to the embattled IPOB leader, the judge, having issued an enrolled order with respect to a ruling she delivered on November 24, 2024, to recuse herself from the trial, has become functus-officio (lost the legal footing) in his case.
Addressing the court, Kanu insisted that a directive of the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, which returned his case file back to Justice Nyako, was inferior to the enrolled order.
He argued that only the Court of Appeal could override the subsisting recusal order.
The drama that trailed Kanu’s outburst from the dock, led to the adjournment of his case sine-die (indefinitely).
Meanwhile, while some Senior Advocates of Nigeria declined to offer their opinion on the issue which they described as highly sensitive, those that spoke to Newsmen, gave conflicting views.
0
0
