The legal team of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, on Wednesday explained why the Biafra agitator took the “tough decision” of asking Justice Binta Nyako of an Abuja Federal High Court to recuse herself from his trial.
On September 24, Kanu had demanded that Justice Nyako step down from his trial because he lacked confidence in her judgement.
Despite arguments from lawyers of the Nigerian Government, the judge recused herself from the trial.
However, a team of Kanu’s lawyers led by the lead counsel, Aloy Ejimakor said their client was only exercising his constitutional right.
Addressing a press conference in Abuja, Ejimakor said the Department of State Services, DSS, has continued to disregard court ruling allowing the legal team unmonitored access to their client.
According to Ejimakor: “We called this impromptu press briefing to recap what happened in court on September 24. What happened is an example of a defendant exercising his right under the constitution when he loses confidence in the court before whom he has been brought to trial.
“It’s nothing extraordinary, it didn’t have to happen but it happened. We have contended, filed motions upon motions before the High Court submitting evidence that where Kanu is currently detained complicates his preparation for trial because of several unconstitutional conducts by the DSS.
“The DSS seizes our legal documents, listens to our conversations, and this has led to an extraordinary court order by the former Federal High Court judge handling this case that we be provided a clean room free from listening devices for us to be effective in preparing him for trial. That clean room was not provided and the DSS continues to listen to our conversations each time we go there.
“Under Section 36 of the Constitution, this is wrong. Given that DSS has become very stubborn in complying with this court order, we filed a contempt proceedings which is pending before the Federal High Court but there is no change in circumstance.
“So, on September 24 when the judge insisted that trial must proceed in the face of all these anomalies, our client had no choice but to recuse the judge in line with his constitutional right because with this atmosphere of not being able to prepare for his trial, how could the judge insist that trial must continue, this was exactly what led to the loss of confidence in the judge and request for recusal.”
Another member of the legal team, lawyer Nnemeka Ejiofor assured that Kanu didn’t disrespect Justice Nyako in any way by asking her to recuse herself from his trial.
Ejiofor said Kanu was not feeling secured and his fundamental right protected, hence the decision to ask the judge to recuse herself from his case.
Ejiofor said: “Some people including those in government circle tend to see what happened on September 24 in court as a sign of disrespect to the judge and judiciary but we must clear the air. Everybody who appears before the court of law must have that feeling of being in a secured environment where his or her right must be protected and seen to be protected. Once you are before a court and you don’t feel that your fundamental right is being protected then you have the right to request the judge to recuse himself. This can happen for so many reasons.
“There are reasons why Kanu had to take that very tough option of asking the judge to recuse herself, one of which is that he believes that the judge was disrespectful to the Supreme Court’s judgement that his bail be restored.
“Kanu felt if a Federal High Court judge does not respect the decision of the Supreme Court, then there is no need standing trial before such a judge. Be that as it may, we feel the need to enlighten the public that it was not an act of disrespect whatsoever to Justice Nyako. She remains a sound and astute judge and one we all love to appear before.”
In a similar vein, Lawyer Jude Ugwuanyi explained that the legal team of the IPOB leader are prepared to appear before any judge who would be unbiased.
He lamented that Kanu’s continued stay in detention was escalating insecurity in the Southeast.
“The Federal Government is nor ready to proceed with the trial of Nnamdi Kanu because the Southeasterners are the worst victims of insecurity. I lost a brother in final year in Faculty of Law to this insecurity. And one wonders at the interest of federal government in not being open to trial. Each time we go to court, they claim they are not ready for trial because you can’t be ready for trial when the atmosphere is not sufficient for the defendant to properly conduct the defense.
“Instead of giving us free atmosphere for a conducive trial, they are insisting on trial while our client is handicapped. And when we see that it’s not a fair trial, we ask for time to do the needful but they say its impossible and that was why Kanu insisted that this trial can’t go on. If the Federal Government should consider the insecurity in the Southeast and its primary responsibility is to consider the citizens, then they should allow this man either bail or give him enough room to discuss with his lawyers to effectively defend himself.
“Kanu was right to say I need another judge, he never requested for a particular judge but said any other judge of the High Court is okay. We are ready to proceed with the trial with any other judge given to us provided we foresee non-bias and impartiality,” he added.
Share your story or advertise with us: Whatsapp: +2347068606071 Email: info@newspotng.com
