The leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, has been ordered to appear for a hearing on Monday, February 10, 2025, before Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court, Abuja.
This was contained in a hearing notice obtained by our correspondent on Friday.
The notice, dated January 22, 2025, was addressed to Kanu’s lead counsel, Aloy Ejimakor.
Kanu had earlier requested that his case be transferred to the South-East if no judge at the Federal High Court in Abuja was willing to handle it apart from Justice Nyako.
On September 24, 2024, during one of the court sessions, Kanu made a request before the open court that Justice Nyako should recuse herself from his trial, citing a lack of confidence in her.
Following this request, Justice Nyako recused herself and transferred the case file to Justice Tsoho.
However, Justice Tsoho subsequently returned the case file to Justice Nyako for the continuation of the trial.
Kanu has since maintained that Justice Nyako presiding over the case after her recusal would amount to a violation of her own judicial orders.
He instructed his legal team to ensure that she refrained from handling the case.
Responding to the Monday hearing notice, Ejimakor expressed surprise, stating that they “shall appear with bated breath.”
The hearing notice read partly, “Suit No:FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015 – Hearing notice between the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Plaintiff) and Nnamdi Kanu (Defendant). This case will be transferred from the general cause list to the hearing paper for Monday, the 10th day of February 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in the forenoon and will come on to be heard on that day if the business of the court permits, or otherwise on some adjournment day of which you will receive no further notice.
“If either party desires to postpone the hearing, they must apply to the court as soon as possible for that purpose. If the application is based on any matter of fact, the applicant must be prepared to provide proof of those facts.
“The parties are warned that at the hearing, they are required to bring forward all the evidence by witnesses or documents they desire to rely on in support of their case or in contradiction of their opponent’s case.
“The proof will be required at the hearing and not on a subsequent day. Parties failing to bring their evidence forward at the proper time may find themselves precluded from adducing it, or, at best, allowed to do so on payment of substantial costs to the other side and under such terms as the court deems fit”
Meanwhile, Kanu, through his counsel Ejimakor, reiterated his desire to have the matter transferred to a High Court in the South-East in a letter dated January 30, 2025.
The letter stated: “We are Solicitors-of-Record to the Defendant, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu (hereafter: our Client/Defendant), in the above-captioned matter. Pursuant to Order 49, Rule 3 of the Federal High Court Rules 2019 and Section 45 of the Federal High Court Act, we hereby humbly apply for the transfer of this matter from the Abuja division of the Federal High Court to any division of the Court in the South-East”
Ejimakor in the letter argued that Justice Nyako no longer has jurisdiction to handle the case following her recusal, which he described as binding.
He stated, “Given that no other judge in the Abuja division is willing to take the case, the only viable option is to transfer the case to any division of the Federal High Court in the South-East geopolitical zone, especially since the alleged offences have an impact in the South-East (and not Abuja). This gives the South-East divisions superior jurisdiction compared to Abuja.”
Ejimakor appealed to the court to consider their request to prevent a miscarriage of justice for the defendant.