Nnamdi Kanu reiterates commitment to fair trial, challenges judicial bias
On February 12, 2025, Aloy Ejimakor, Esq. announced that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu remains steadfast in pursuing a fair trial.
Furthermore, during a morning visitation, Kanu reiterated his commitment to ensuring that his trial follows the rule of law.
He stressed that the period of institutional bias against him, particularly within Abuja courts, must cease immediately.
Moreover, Kanu declared his willingness to confront any court that does not uphold the rule of law.
His legal team conveyed his deep concerns about past rulings lacking impartiality.
Notably, Kanu asserted that most decisions in his Abuja cases have been plagued by unconstitutional practices, except for one exception.
He specifically cited violations of Section 36 of the Nigerian Constitution, which mandates courts to operate independently and impartially.
Furthermore, Kanu highlighted the Supreme Court’s findings regarding Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako’s bias in his case.
The apex court made a significant decision, revoking Justice Nyako’s jurisdiction.
Related Posts
This ruling, based on bias, justified her recusal.
Kanu’s legal team pointed out that Justice Nyako’s refusal to reinstate his bail further underscores her disregard for the Supreme Court’s authority.
Given these circumstances, Kanu’s legal team stressed that Justice Nyako should no longer preside over any aspect of his case.
The legal team described the reassignment of the case by Chief Judge Justice John Tsoho as a serious violation of the law. Specifically, they contended that assigning the case to a judge already barred by a prior recusal order undermines judicial integrity.
Moreover, they rejected the legitimacy of the proceedings that took place on February 10, 2025, in Justice Nyako’s court. They emphasized that these proceedings lack substantial legal grounding, which consequently renders any rulings made on that date ineffective.
Furthermore, the statement criticized misleading narratives suggesting that Kanu’s case has been indefinitely adjourned. They clarified that recused judges forfeit their authority to convene, preside, or make rulings on a case once recusal occurs.
In conclusion, Kanu’s legal team reaffirmed their unwavering commitment to uphold justice in alignment with constitutional guidelines.
They emphasized that the rule of law must prevail and warned against actions that undermine judicial independence and impartiality.
