The family of Nnamdi Kanu, the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has called for sanctions against the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, and Justice Binta Nyako over what they describe as disobedience to court orders.
In a statement issued in Abuja on Sunday and signed by Kanu’s brother, Prince Emmanuel Kanu, the family accused both judges of disregarding valid judicial pronouncements, which they argue has brought the judiciary into disrepute. The statement highlighted rulings from Nigerian courts and international bodies that have favored Kanu’s release, yet remain unenforced.
The family commended the intervention of the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Kudirat Motonmori Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun, in reassigning Kanu’s trial to another judge. However, they criticized the delay in implementing this decision, particularly Justice Nyako’s alleged refusal to step down despite making a recusal order in her own court.
“We welcome the intervention of the Chief Justice of Nigeria in ensuring that Kanu’s case is reassigned to a competent and impartial judge,” the statement read. “However, it is shocking that it took public pressure and the involvement of Nigeria’s highest judicial officer for Justice Nyako to obey her own order of recusal.”
The family argued that in any country that respects the rule of law, both Justice Tsoho and Justice Nyako should face sanctions for their actions.
“A chief judge who seeks to overturn a valid court order through a mere memo, and a presiding judge who refuses to honor her own ruling, should not remain on the bench,” the statement said.
The Kanu family also criticized what they described as judicial impunity, accusing some legal commentators of justifying the refusal to obey court orders.
“At the heart of this saga is an attempt by the Nigerian state to criminalize self-determination, a right that is protected under international law,” the statement continued.
They further alleged that the proscription of IPOB was politically motivated and compared it to the events leading up to the Nigerian Civil War. According to the family, the government’s handling of IPOB mirrors past persecution of the Igbo people.
“The same way the 1966 coup was labeled an ‘Igbo coup’ to justify mass killings, IPOB’s proscription is being used as a pretext to suppress the Eastern region and jail Nnamdi Kanu,” the statement said.
The family also questioned the legality of IPOB’s proscription, noting that a court in Abuja had ruled that the group was not unlawful. They accused the former Attorney General, Abubakar Malami, of securing the proscription through a flawed legal process without following due constitutional procedures.
They warned that the ongoing trial would further damage Nigeria’s judiciary, exposing selective justice and political bias.
“No society governed by common law can use an outcome in a civil suit to impose criminal liability on an accused person,” the statement added. “The proscription of IPOB, upon which the charges are based, was made through a civil process without fair hearing. It cannot stand.”
The family reiterated their demand for Kanu’s release, insisting that justice must be served in line with legal principles and previous court rulings.
