₦airaland Forum

The Legal and Ethical Crisis in Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s Trial Before Justice Binta Nyako, By Lemmy Ughegbe, Ph.D
NewsdiaryonlineFeb 10, 2025 11:44 PM

In examining the ongoing trial of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu before Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court, I will limit my intervention to a singular but critical issue of law: the principle of judicial impartiality and the implications of alleged bias in adjudication.

It is a fundamental tenet of justice that no judge should preside over a matter in which their impartiality has been reasonably called into question. The principle of nemo judex in causa sua, that no one should judge their own case, is fundamental to fair trials and honest courts. The moment a litigant formally raises concerns about a judge’s neutrality—whether due to perceived bias, vested interest, or a history of contentious rulings against them—the judge is legally and morally bound to step aside to prevent any appearance of partiality. Courts have repeatedly held that even the mere perception of bias is enough to vitiate judicial proceedings because justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.

The Supreme Court of Nigeria has consistently reinforced this principle. In Dime v. Proprietors of Grand Junction Canal (1852) 3 HLC 759, it was held that a judge must recuse themselves from any case where they have a direct or indirect interest. Similarly, in Metropolitan Properties Co Ltd v. Lannon (1969) 1 QB 577, Lord Denning held that the test for determining judicial bias is whether a reasonable observer, with knowledge of all relevant facts, would conclude that there is a real likelihood of bias. This principle has been followed in Nigeria in Ameh v. Sosanya (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1190) 144, where the Court of Appeal ruled that judicial officers must disqualify themselves if there is even an appearance of bias, regardless of whether actual bias exists.


Furthermore, in Kenon v. Tekam (2001) 14 NWLR (Pt. 732) 12, the Supreme Court held that where a judge is accused of bias or partiality, they should, in the interest of justice, disqualify themselves from presiding over the case. The Court emphasised that a judge does not need to have actual bias; the perception of bias alone is enough to warrant recusal.

In the present case, there is no ambiguity regarding the legal status of Justice Binta Nyako’s continued involvement in Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s trial. A valid and binding court order has already recused her from presiding over this matter. This means that any further proceedings conducted under her authority are not merely irregular but illegal. Her insistence on continuing with the trial despite this judicial directive constitutes a grave violation of due process and a blatant disregard for the rule of law.

Even more alarming is Justice Nyako’s admission that she is aware of the recusal order, but is proceeding based on a letter from the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court instructing her to continue with the trial. This raises serious concerns about her understanding of the law. It is trite that an administrative letter from the Chief Judge does not and cannot amount to a judicial order setting aside a valid and subsisting order of a court of competent jurisdiction. To suggest otherwise is to embrace legal absurdity and crass ignorance. The only lawful means of setting aside the recusal order is through a properly filed motion before a superior court, leading to a formal ruling that overturns the earlier decision. Any attempt to disregard an existing order based on an administrative directive is a direct affront to the independence of the judiciary and the sanctity of judicial pronouncements.

The Nigerian Constitution, particularly Section 36(1), guarantees every individual the right to a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal. Furthermore, international human rights instruments, including the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), reinforce the necessity of judicial independence and the right of an accused person to be tried before an unbiased judge. Justice Nyako’s refusal to step aside, despite a clear order to do so, not only erodes public confidence in the judiciary but also exposes Nigeria to scrutiny under international legal frameworks.

Beyond the legal implications, the continued insistence on Justice Nyako presiding over this trial has wider socio-political ramifications. The trial of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is not just any criminal proceeding—it is one that has deep ethnic, political, and national security dimensions. Given the sensitivity surrounding the case, judicial officials must exercise heightened caution to ensure that the process is above board. Anything that suggests political interference or a compromised judiciary can further fuel agitation, resentment, and instability.


Moreover, the question must be asked: why is there resistance to reassigning this case to another judge? The Federal High Court has numerous competent justices capable of adjudicating the matter fairly. If the judicial system is truly impartial, then recusing a judge who has been formally ordered to step aside should not be an issue. Insisting that Justice Nyako must proceed with the trial, despite the binding order against her involvement, raises suspicions that there may be vested interests at play, which could undermine the credibility of the final verdict.

Upholding the rule of law in this case is not just about Mazi Nnamdi Kanu; it is about safeguarding the integrity of Nigeria’s judicial system. If court orders can be disregarded, if accusations of bias are swept under the rug, and if due process is compromised for the sake of expediency, then no citizen is safe from judicial misconduct. Justice should not be subject to political expediency or personal interests. The law must apply equally to all, and its processes must be transparent and beyond reproach.

It is, therefore, imperative that the valid recusal order against Justice Nyako be enforced without delay, and the case reassigned to an impartial judge. Anything less would amount to a miscarriage of justice and further diminish public trust in the judiciary. The credibility of Nigeria’s legal system depends on its ability to uphold fundamental principles of fairness, justice, and the rule of law—without compromise.

Apt, swift and with all clarity

There must be a political undertone for insisting to go against her own order because of administrative directive. But really a justice should know better.

The moment a litigant formally raises concerns about a judge’s neutrality—whether due to perceived bias, vested interest, or a history of contentious rulings against them—the judge is legally and morally bound to step aside to prevent any appearance of partiality.

Utter nonsense. It is absolutely in the judge's discretion whether or not to recuse themselves. The only thing you can do is appeal to a Superior Court, which may then review the circumstances.

In this case, Justice Nyarko did recuse herself. However, the case was reassigned to her by the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, which means there was a determination that there was no issue with bias.

https://thesun.ng/alleged-treason-chief-judge-returns-kanus-case-file-to-justice-nyako-for-trial/

So, to answer your question, Justice Nyarko insists on handling the matter because that is what her boss ordered. Next!

SmartyPants:
Utter nonsense. It is absolutely in the judge's discretion whether or not to recuse themselves. The only thing you can do is appeal to a Superior Court, which may then review the circumstances.

In this case, Justice Nyarko did recuse herself. However, the case was reassigned to her by the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, which means there was a determination that there was no issue with bias.

https://thesun.ng/alleged-treason-chief-judge-returns-kanus-case-file-to-justice-nyako-for-trial/

So, to answer your question, Justice Nyarko insists on handling the matter because that is what her boss ordered. Next!

I don't know if you're ok

When there is a recusal court order restricting a judge from a case, and the case was administratively reassigned to the same judge, what does that mean?

He need to free his husband and son from the Federal government ransom

SmartyPants:
Utter nonsense. It is absolutely in the judge's discretion whether or not to recuse themselves. The only thing you can do is appeal to a Superior Court, which may then review the circumstances.

In this case, Justice Nyarko did recuse herself. However, the case was reassigned to her by the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, which means there was a determination that there was no issue with bias.

https://thesun.ng/alleged-treason-chief-judge-returns-kanus-case-file-to-justice-nyako-for-trial/

So, to answer your question, Justice Nyarko insists on handling the matter because that is what her boss ordered. Next!

And yet Kanu quoted a law in the court where the Chief Judge cannot tell Nyako to continue with the case

The woman's bias was clearly shown in that the Supreme court clearly stated that she should not have revoked Kanu's bail, but she kept it revoked even though she knew what the higher court said.

gidgiddy:
And yet Kanu quoted a law in the court where the Chief Judge cannot tell Nyako to continue with the case

Kindly reference that law.

Those who used Kanu might not want him out

SmartyPants:
"Recusal court order" What on earth does this one think he just said?

Anyway, I don't chat with animals, sorry!

I know you're slow and lower than a four walked animal but wasn't expecting dumb to be part of it...

Let me help you. 🤡

Jail MNK or we jail your husband and son.

EasternActivist:
I know you're slow and lower than a four walked animal but wasn't expecting dumb to be part of it...

Let me help you. 🤡

Lol, what a dunce.

The point there was that there is no term like "Recusal Court Order". It is an Order of Recusal. The point is that you don't know what you are talking about, though you may have heard some people use certain terms. Thus, you must refrain from having an opinion. Now, be reminded:

Anyway, I don't chat with animals, sorry!

Nlfpm this should go to front page , pls.

SmartyPants:
Lol, what a dunce.

The point there was that there is no term like "Recusal Court Order". It is an Order of Recusal. The point is that you don't know what you are talking about, though you may have heard some people use certain terms. Thus, you must refrain from having an opinion. Now, be reminded:

When you’re defeated, just admit or back out. You people pollute this space with too much ignorance

The OP is mentally unstable.

givedemwotowoto:
When you’re defeated, just admit or back out. You people pollute this space with too much ignorance

It would be silly of anyone to reason as he did, and as you appear to, when my previous post on this thread talks about the discretion of a judge to recuse himself.

Clearly, then, there cannot have been a question over whether there is such a thing as recusal orders or orders of recusal, given that orders are the procedural language of the Court. Rather, the way he framed it makes it clear he knows nothing at all.

I am a lawyer, and I will not entertain the opinions of laypersons, particularly those of the animalistic tendency!

simpleseyi:
The OP is mentally unstable.

Kid. If you're mentally stable you wouldn't say this.

SmartyPants:
It would be silly of anyone to reason as he did, and as you appear to, when my previous post on this thread talks about the discretion of a judge to recuse himself.

Clearly, then, there cannot have been a question over whether there is such a thing as recusal orders or orders of recusal, given that orders are the procedural language of the Court. Rather, the way he framed it makes it clear he knows nothing at all.

I am a lawyer, and I will not entertain the opinions of laypersons, particularly those of the animalistic tendency!

Can you stop fouling this thread with your demented ignorance!!

SmartyPants:
Lol, what a dunce.

The point there was that there is no term like "Recusal Court Order". It is an Order of Recusal. The point is that you don't know what you are talking about, though you may have heard some people use certain terms. Thus, you must refrain from having an opinion. Now, be reminded:

You're not serious, do you see me in any bar association or class? it's quite shameful you're arguing this that even artificial intelligence was able to decode the actual definition of the words I used while a whole tutor that's suppose to know better like you can't, maybe a quack. And you're here making the wackiest argument.

Bro I no send that vocab but at least I've educated myself with what the op has wrote and from what I researched. So shut d fk up and shove your correction up your gravity center grid. You made a useless point between

EasternActivist:
You're not serious, do you see me in any bar association or class? it's quite shameful you're arguing this that even artificial intelligence was able to decode the actual definition of the words I used while a whole tutor that's suppose to know better like you can't, maybe a quack. And you're here making the wackiest argument.

Bro I no send that vocab but at least I've educated myself with what the op has wrote and from what I researched. So shut d fk up and shove your correction up your gravity center grid. You made a useless point between

So what gives you the audacity to have an opinion, knowing fully well that neither you nor the person you are even learning from knows what they're talking about? You are questioning the actions of a Federal High Court Judge and the Federal High Court Chief Judge, knowing fully well that you don't know anything - doesn't that make you feel ridiculous?

SmartyPants:
So what gives you the audacity to have an opinion, knowing fully well that neither you nor the person you are even learning from knows what they're talking about? You are questioning the actions of a Federal High Court Judge and the Federal High Court Chief Judge, knowing fully well that you don't know anything - doesn't that make you feel ridiculous?

You must be 🤡

What qualifies you for asking that stupid question, are you an enforcer of peoples opinion or what. Did God create you different from others and told them not to have their opinion

You're indeed a 🤡

You quoted a terminology used by the bar which involves judge recusing themselves from case and yet you're here questioning the decision of the court. Was I the one that told the judge to recuse herself?

I will continue giving my opinion you can go and d*e

EasternActivist:
You must be 🤡

What qualifies you for asking that stupid question, are you an enforcer of peoples opinion or what. Did God create you different from others and told them not to have their opinion

You're indeed a 🤡

I will continue giving my opinion you can go and d*e

But you are the one who commented on my post, not the other way around. Not so? The only reason I commented on your rubbish is because you attempted to contradict me with your rubbish opinion, even though you know that you have no knowledge in this area at all.

It is common sense that you ought to refrain from talking rubbish, but of course, I can't compel you to have common sense. Feel free to be the animal that you are.

Ta ta!

SmartyPants:
But you are the one who commented on my post, not the other way around. Not so? The only reason I commented on your rubbish is because you attempted to contradict me with your rubbish opinion, even though you know that you have no knowledge in this area at all.

It is common sense that you ought to refrain from talking rubbish, but of course, I can't compel you to have common sense. Feel free to be the animal that you are.

Ta ta!

If you write rubbish I will come for you anywhere I see it ✍🏽

EasternActivist:
If you write rubbish I will come for you anywhere I see it ✍🏽

Good boy. That's what I was trying to explain to you. You wrote rubbish and needed a correction and a warning to desist. I think you owe me thanks BTW.

So by falsely accusing Justice Binta Nyanko of being biased without providing any evidence to back it up which is a deliberate tactic that is meant to stall his trial, and requesting that the case be transferred to a Federal High Court in the SE preferably with an Ibo judge , all this epistle filled with spit was written.


Rubbish.


It's high time the Government establishes a Special Court to handle terrorism cases and have it domiciled in Abuja.

SmartyPants:
Good boy. That's what I was trying to explain to you. You wrote rubbish and needed a correction and a warning to desist. I think you owe me thanks BTW.

You just assume things like a depraved kid...

WHat correction 😂

You know nothing boy

Who is her boss that his order is superior than court order , I don't understand the way some of you reason, there is a COURT ORDER and you are talking about her boss order. This country na wahoo

SmartyPants:
Utter nonsense. It is absolutely in the judge's discretion whether or not to recuse themselves. The only thing you can do is appeal to a Superior Court, which may then review the circumstances.

In this case, Justice Nyarko did recuse herself. However, the case was reassigned to her by the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, which means there was a determination that there was no issue with bias.

https://thesun.ng/alleged-treason-chief-judge-returns-kanus-case-file-to-justice-nyako-for-trial/

So, to answer your question, Justice Nyarko insists on handling the matter because that is what her boss ordered. Next!

EasternActivist:
I know you're slow and lower than a four walked animal but wasn't expecting dumb to be part of it...

Let me help you. 🤡

Chai! And the ignoramus actually named himself 'SmartyPants' ? charge & bail toh badt

SeeWahala:
Chai! And the ignoramus actually named himself 'SmartyPants' ? charge & bail toh badt

he wants to appear smart but actually dumb as fk

APCHaram:
So by falsely accusing Justice Binta Nyanko of being biased without providing any evidence to back it up which is a deliberate tactic that is meant to stall his trial, and requesting that the case be transferred to a Federal High Court in the SE preferably with an Ibo judge , all this epistle filled with spit was written.


Rubbish.


It's high time the Government establishes a Special Court to handle terrorism cases and have it domiciled in Abuja.

Mtcheeewww Madman anthem. Always typing trash.

you cant choose who should be your judge....

if the head of the judges says binta must handle the case soo then be it....
if judge binta says case indefitnily then its case closed already....

this is actualy direction of life sentence in case you ibos dont understand lawyers language....

SmartyPants:
"Recusal court order" What on earth does this one think he just said?

[v]Anyway, I don't chat with animals, sorry[/b]!

Don't tell us you are indirectly running away o

Because it is Kanu (an Igbo man) everybody is now turning the law upside down, forgetting that if you lots succeeds in making it a norm it must surely get to you one day.
This is something you don't know because you are a typical black man.