The legal team led by Kanu’s special lawyer, Barrister Aloy Ejimakor, made the accusation in an impromptu press conference held on Wednesday evening, where they also explained why Kanu requested the recusal of the Federal High Court Judge, Justice Binta Nyako from handling Kanu’s case on September 24.
The legal team of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has accused President Bola Tinubu’s administration of being unwilling to continue with Kanu’s trial and insensitive to insecurity in the South-East.
The legal team led by Kanu’s special lawyer, Barrister Aloy Ejimakor, made the accusation in an impromptu press conference held on Wednesday evening, where they also explained why Kanu requested the recusal of the Federal High Court Judge, Justice Binta Nyako from handling Kanu’s case on September 24.
Ejimakor said Kanu and his legal team had complained several times and filed several motions before the High Court, submitting evidence that where Kanu is being detained complicates his preparation for trial.
Ejimakor said this is because of several unconstitutional incidents and actions of the Department of State Services (DSS).
He said, “One, the DSS seizes our legal documents. The DSS listens to our conversations. These things 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 secret listening devices in order to be effective in preparing him for trial confidentially.
“That clean room was not provided and the DSS continued to interdict our documents. Each time we go there. Under Section 36 of the Nigerian Constitution, this is wrong.
“A defendant is entitled, as of constitutional right, to adequate facility to prepare his defence and to interact with his counsels in an atmosphere of confidentiality free from any interference whatsoever.
“Given that the DSS has become very stubborn in complying with these court orders, we filed contempt proceedings which is pending before the Federal High Court but there is no change in circumstance which made it impossible for us to prepare Nnamdi Kanu for trial.
“When on September 24, 2024, the judge [Justice Binta Nyako] insisted that trial must proceed in the face of these abnormalities, our client had no choice but to exercise his constitutional right to recuse the judge.”
Another of Kanu’s lawyers, Barrister Jude Ugwuanyi, said, “One thing I’m particular about is the issue of insecurity in the South-East. The federal government is not ready to proceed with the trial of Nnamdi Kanu.
“The Southeasterners are the worst victims of insecurity that is bedeviling the nation. I have lost a brother who was in final year, Faculty of Law, to this insecurity, and one wonders what is the interest of the federal government in not being open to trial [of Kanu].
“Each time we go to court, they would say they are ready for trial but you cannot be ready for trial when the atmosphere you create is not sufficient or conducive for the defendant to properly conduct the defence.
“As a result of this insecurity, I cannot even travel to my village, and instead of giving us free atmosphere for a conducive trial, they are insisting on trial whereas our client is handicapped. When we felt that was not a fair trial, we asked them to give us time to do the needful, and that was when Nnamdi Kanu insisted that the trial cannot go on.
“If the federal government should consider the insecurity in the South-East, and being aware that their primary responsibility is to secure lives and properties of the citizens, they should allow this man either bail or give him enough room to discuss with his lawyer so as to effectively defend himself.
“In the absence of all these things, Nnamdi Kanu was right to say he needs another judge. He said he does not subject himself to this particular judge (Justice Binta Nyako), but any other judge of the High Court is okay, and any other judge they give us, we are ready to go, provided we foresee non-bias and impartiality.”
Also, Barrister Nnaemeka Ejiofor, said some people including those in government saw Kanu’s request for a change of judge as a sign of disrespect to the judiciary but explained that everybody who appears in court must have the confident that their right must be protected and that he or she is safe.
He said, “Once you are before a court and you do not have that feeling that your fundamental right is being protected by the court, then you have the right to request the judge to recuse himself.
“This could happen for so many reasons. There are reasons Nnamdi Kanu had to take that very hard option, asking the judge, [Justice Binta Nyako] to recuse herself. One of which is that Nnamdi Kanu believes that the judge was disrespectful to the Supreme Court’s judgment that his bail be restored.
“Nnamdi Kanu felt if the Federal High Court judge does not respect the decision of the Supreme Court, there is no need standing trial before such a judge. Be that as it may, we feel the need to let everybody know that it was not an act of disrespect whatsoever to Justice Binta Nyako. She remains a very sound judge.”