The Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, on Tuesday declared that there is enough facts to deny Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court in Abuja jurisdiction to preside over the trial of its leader, Nnamdi Kanu.

IPOB said the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court disobeyed the Supreme Court by refusing to accept Justice Nyako’s recusal from Kanu’s trial.

Last year, Kanu had challenged Justice Nyako to recuse herself from his trial because he no longer had confidence in her judgment.

Following his demands, the judge stepped down and returned Kanu’s case file to the Chief Justice of the Federal High Court, John Tsoho.

But Justice Tsoho refused to reassign the case to another judge.

Consequently, Kanu’s case file was returned to Nyako for continuation of trial and the judge adjourned the matter indefinitely.

Despite the adjournment, the IPOB leader had vowed to remain perpetually detained until his case is assigned to an impartial judge.

IPOB’s spokesman, Emma Powerful, insists that Justice Nyako remained recused from Kanu’s trial.

A statement by Powerful reads: “It has come to the attention of the noble family of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) as a shock that those charged with safeguarding the integrity of what is left of the judiciary in Nigeria are the very people doing their damnest to destroy whatever lingering shred of integrity the judiciary may have left.

“It is mind blowing that a sitting high court judge, the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court of Nigeria and the Chairman of the Body of Benchers of Nigeria amongst themselves cannot fathom that a subsisting court order – a consenting judgement for that matter cannot be set aside even on appeal without first obtaining the leave of the trial court.

“This is nursery school law that doesn’t require detailed explanation. The fact that a whole Chief Judge of the Federal High Court in Nigeria brazenly disregarded a valid order of court, without first setting aside the order through a legally valid due process is indicative of the chaos and poor knowledge of the law that fuel the epidemic of state sponsored judicial banditry in Nigeria.

“It is scandalous that up until now, 7 days after such show of shame, leading lights within the legal profession have not called for a public independent inquiry into the circumstances surrounding such blatant and shameless attempt to subvert the course of justice in full view of the world.

“For the avoidance of doubt, we wish to place it on record that it was the Supreme Court of Nigeria, the highest court in the land in a judgement that determined that the impartiality of Justice Binta Nyako is suspect.

“This formed the basis of her recusal which she did not contest. She entered an order of court, which is law, that she would no longer preside over the case of our leader Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.

“Why Chief Judge John Tsoho decided on his own to ignore a ruling made by the highest court (Supreme Court), a subsisting court order recusing Justice Binta Nyako and a key section of the law that governs the conduct of judges, is a question only John Tsoho can answer. But at least this episode has exposed the rot and decay at the very heart of the judiciary especially in Abuja where the government it seems would do any and everything to subvert the rule of law.

“That a judge can sit without jurisdiction and purpot to adjourn a case indefinitely, which by law she is not allowed to do, is indicative that rule of law has been jettisoned for rule of impunity.

“One would have expected the Chairman of the Body of Benchers to point out the blatant illegality of the reassigning of a case file to a judge who stand recused by virtue of a court order or intervene and call both the Chief Justice and the Binta Nyako to order. He failed to do any of the above but instead actively participated in the rape of justice for reasons best known to him.

“One thing is certain, this impunity will not stand because common law which is what Nigeria practices are predicated on common sense and it is a notorious fact that no judge can sit in judgement over his own case.

“Therefore asking Binta Nyako to review her own order of recusal without following due process of law is dead on arrival. Binta Nyako’s order of recusal in conjunction with Supreme Court decision on the issue of her bias against Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and the key provision of the National Judicial Policy especially Section 1 (c) is enough to deny Binta Nyako jurisdiction to preside over this matter.”