The legal team of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has told the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court that re-assigning Kanu’s case to Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court Abuja, after she had recused herself earlier from the matter, amounts to a judicial aberration.

This was contained in a 31-page press statement issued by the team Thursday in Abuja, and signed by Aloy Ejimakor, Nnaemeka Ejiofor, Maxwell Opara, Jude Okey Ugwuanyi, Patrick Agazie, Mandela Umegborogu, and Magnus Ikenna Nwangwu.

The team which accused the Federal Government of bias in the trial of the IPOB leader, claimed that his prosecution which has lingered for nine years, “has now turned from legal to political” trial.

According to the legal team, it is a judicial error to return a case to a judge after the judge had earlier recused himself by court order from the same matter.

Recall that Justice Nyako had in September 2024, recused herself from Kanu’s trial following lack of confidence objection raised by Kanu.

Justice Nyako sent the case file to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court for re-assignment to another Judge of the Court.

Meanwhile, Kanu in December, 2024 wrote to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court for a re-assignment of the case, protesting the reluctance of the Federal Government in re-assigning his case to another Judge or freeing him.

Kanu’s legal team expressed shock and worry that instead of the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court assigning Kanu’s case to another Judge, he decided to allegedly return it to the same Judge that had earlier withdrawn from the matter.

The statement read in part. “On 5th December 2024, the senior lawyer prosecuting the case on behalf of the Federal Government wrote a letter suggesting that the case be calendared for trial before the same

Judge that was recused by an extant court order.

“We are also hearing that the Chief Judge, whose duty includes assigning cases, has sent back the case to the same judge that was recused.

“To this, we must go on record to state that both actions of the prosecutor and the Chief Judge are wrong and liable to fail constitutional muster.”

Kanu’s trial now political

Kanu’s lawyers further alleged that the prosecution of the IPOB leader, had turned into political persecution instead of legal trial.

They wondered why the Chief Judge of the Federal Court would wait for five months before re-assigning Kanu’s trial to another Judge after the trial Judge quilted herself from the matter.

“As lawyers, our duty is to ensure that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s case is conducted or handled in accordance with all laws pertinent to it, particularly the Constitution which is the ground norm. In our view, this has not been the case and the evidence is legion, as all who have dispassionately followed the trajectories of this case would agree.

“On this score, we make bold to state that this case has turned from the legal or the judicial to the political. This is perhaps the reason there is a broad spectrum of persons and organizations calling for a resolution of this case outside of the judicial path. These calls range from the international to the domestic, including members of the Senate, House of Representatives, the clergy, CSOs, eminent lawyers, and many others too numerous to mention.

“Be that as it may and judging from 2015 when this case began, there is a trove of evidence that suggests that the only way to correctly describe what Mazi Nnamdi Kanu has passed through for almost a decade is to say that his case (even though bereft of any merit), has turned from a trial by the Constitution to a trial by ordeal. This is perverse and it will not stand.”