The recent developments surrounding Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s trial with the Federal Government of Nigeria has once again raised serious questions and concerns from various quarters over how justice is administered in Nigerian courts by the Nigerian judiciary as an independent arm of government, particularly in high-profile cases such as that of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu vs Federal Government of Nigeria.
Following the recusal of Justice Binta Nyako from Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s case on September 24, 2024, the Chief Judge of the Federation Justice John Tsoho have rejected her recusal and reassigned the case back to Justice Binta Nyako.
This development have further exposed the level of reluctancy and compromise from Nigerian judges over handling sensitive high-profile cases. It appears that Nigerian judges are signaling their disinterests to take charge of this case. Even though, no reputable judge would want to find themselves trapped in a legal maze that is increasingly multipart and fraught with political overtones, this twist of plot underscores how decayed the judicial system in Nigeria is at the moment.
Moreso, as the saying goes, “A wise man avoids danger; a fool puts himself in it.”
Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), have maintained his firm stance that he has no case to answer. Since his initial arrest in 2015, the Nigerian government has persistently sought ways to keep him incarcerated, whether through legal means or extrajudicial methods.
Consequently, Kanu’s call for self-determination and the Biafran cause has been met with brute and aggressive responses from the government and the security forces, often times violating his human rights. Yet, after nearly a decade of legal battles, it becomes obvious that no substantive evidence has been presented to support the frivolous charges brought against him.
One may wish to ask, why are judges refusing to stay on this case?
To state the facts, recall that Justice Nyako, in her recusal, acknowledged the immense pressure weighing on her and the absence of confidence from Kanu himself. Additionally, two other judges had previously recused themselves, which indicates the difficulty and reluctance to preside over it.
This pattern reveals a harsh reality: Kanu’s case has become a hot potato—one that no judge wants to handle for fear of damaging his/her reputation or becoming ensnared in a political crossfire.
The Chief Judge’s refusal to accept Justice Nyako’s recusal only deepens the suspicion that the Nigerian government is determined to imprison Kanu by any means necessary but the problem is who is willing to rule over the case, probably to jail Nnamdi Kanu. Justice Tsoho’s decision to return the case file to Nyako, despite her clear attempts to distance herself, raises questions about the motives behind the judiciary’s involvement in the case. This case has lingered since 2015, a testament to the government’s inability to prove its claims and charges against citizen, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. By continuously assigning the case to compromised judges, it has become evident that the government is more focused on finding a way to detain or rather imprison Kanu than on delivering true justice before all.
According to Tsoho, that Justice Binta Nyako is considered the best-placed judge to handle and conclude the case, given that it has pended with her the longest. However, even though she is appearing to be battling conflicts of interests, her reluctancy, leaves Nnamdi Kanu with few options. If Kanu still insists on recusing Justice Nyako, as Justice Tsoho indicated, he will need to file a formal written motion with an affidavit to back up his claims of bias or unfair handling.
This development only serves to reinforce proves that the Nigerian government is not acting in good faith. They’re actually buying time to prolong the trial and yet detain Nnamdi Kanu indefinitely. Despite nearly a decade of long adjournments of trials and amendments of charges, nothing substantial has been provided to convict Kanu of any wrongdoing.
It is conspicuous to note that the reluctancy of multiple judges to stay and preside on the case stands as evidence that even within the judiciary, there is an understanding that this trial is more political than judicial. No reputable judge wants to be remembered for mishandling a case built on shaky foundations. By continually returning the case to reluctant judges, the judiciary is only damaging its credibility. If the government is sincere in its pursuit of justice, it should either provide tangible evidence against Nnamdi Kanu or drop the case entirely.
As the saying goes, “When the fish rots, it starts from the head.” The time has come for the Nigerian government to reassess its actions before they jeopardize the very principles of justice they claim to uphold.
The world is watching.
Family Writer’s Press International
