Detained IPOB Leader Nnamdi Kanu Petitions Chief Justice Over Alleged Judicial Misconduct
Nnamdi Kanu, the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has filed a petition with the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, accusing Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako of the Federal High Court of misconduct in handling his treason trial.
Kanu’s petition, submitted through his brother Prince Emmanuel Kanu, alleges that Justice Nyako displayed judicial misconduct in case No. FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015 – Mazi Nnamdi Kanu v. Federal Republic of Nigeria. He claims that after initially granting him bail, Justice Nyako revoked it and issued a bench warrant that led to his abduction in Kenya on June 19, 2021, followed by his extraordinary rendition to Nigeria.
The petition states that Kanu was secretly presented before Justice Nyako on June 29, 2021, without his legal counsel present, which he argues violated Sections 36(3) and 36(4)(a) of the Nigerian Constitution. He contends that this hearing resulted in his remand in the custody of the Department of State Services (DSS), which was responsible for his extraordinary rendition.
Kanu further claims that Justice Nyako’s refusal to restore his bail after a Supreme Court ruling on December 15, 2023, constitutes a blatant disregard for the law. He described her actions as a “flagrant abuse” of judicial discretion and disrespect toward the Supreme Court.
In addition to these allegations, Kanu expressed concerns about restrictions placed on him while in DSS custody, which he claims hindered his access to legal counsel and preparation for his defense. His petition also details an application he made to transfer from DSS custody due to these restrictions, which was summarily denied by Justice Nyako.
Kanu’s petition seeks disciplinary action against Justice Nyako for what he describes as judicial misconduct that has caused him significant and ongoing harm, including continued loss of liberty. He calls for adherence to constitutional provisions and enforcement of Supreme Court decisions as mandated by Section 287(1) of the Nigerian Constitution.
As this case unfolds, it raises critical questions about judicial conduct and the protection of defendants’ rights within Nigeria’s legal system.
