Biafra: Lawyers chart course as Kanu’s trial lingers.

As the trial of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, continues to linger, judges’ withdrawal from his case is raising concerns.

The Nigerian Government has been prosecuting Kanu since 2015. He is standing trial for several charges ranging from treasonable felony to terrorism.

In 2017, Justice Binta Nyako of an Abuja Federal High Court granted him bail in the sum of N100 million, but the IPOB leader absconded from Nigeria after the military allegedly invaded his residence in Afaraukwu, Abia State.

Kanu was, however, rearrested in July 2021 in Kenya and subjected to extraordinary rendition back to Nigeria where he was re-arraigned on charges bordering on terrorism.

In October 2022, the Court of Appeal in Abuja discharged and acquitted Kanu of all the 15 count charges, describing them as illegal and unlawful.

However, the Supreme Court ruled that Kanu should return to the High Court and face trial afresh.

Three judges have recused themselves from Kanu’s trial

DAILY POST reports that a total of three judges have stepped down from handling Kanu’s trial since its inception in 2015.

In December 2015, Justice Ahmed Mohammed stepped down from Kanu’s trial after the IPOB leader said he had no confidence in him.

In September 2016, Justice John Tsoho of the Federal High Court in Abuja pulled out of Kanu’s case.

Following the petition, Justice Tsoho who stepped down from the case said: “Even if I am cleared of any bias by the NJC, I will not continue with this case.”

In September 2024, Justice Binta Nyako of Abuja Federal High Court also recused herself from Kanu’s case following his declaration of lack of confidence in her.

But, Kanu’s lead Counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, said the decision of judges to recuse themselves from Kanu’s trial was evidence that the judiciary was having a hard time.

Speaking with DAILY POST, Ejimakor said: “Three judges have been withdrawn from Kanu’s trial since its inception in 2015. This is affirmative evidence that the judiciary is having a hard time or a conflict with coming to a verdict that Kanu committed any real offense.

To break what you called a jinx of judges recusing themselves, all that is required is for Kanu to be treated in accordance with the law and the Constitution.

For instance, he is not supposed to be detained at the DSS where his preparations for trial are hampered by the monitoring of his conversations with his lawyers and interdiction of his confidential legal documents.

On his part, activist lawyer, Madubuachi Idam suggested that with a fair trial, judges won’t need to recuse themselves from Kanu’s trial.

Idam told DAILY POST: “The only thing here is a fair trial, where the trial is seen to be fair and not just fair, where the trial is just and speedy, where there are no needless delays on the part of the state.

Ejimakor also noted that Kanu’s case is still open to both political and judicial solutions.

Similarly, Idam said President Bola Tinubu might be considering toeing the path of a political solution.

He suggested that the president might be consulting with relevant stakeholders on the need to consider a political solution in Kanu’s case.

Now, what do you think? Is it time for a political solution in Kanu’s case? Share your thoughts with us in the comment section below!