Nyako is being accused of judicial misconduct in the handling of Kanu’s case: No. FHC/ABJ/CR//383/2015 – Mazi Nnamdi Kanu v. Federal Republic of Nigeria.
The detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu has petitioned the Chief Justice of Nigeria and Chairman of the National Judicial Council, (CJN), Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, against Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako of the Federal High Court, Abuja.
Nyako is being accused of judicial misconduct in the handling of Kanu’s case: No. FHC/ABJ/CR//383/2015 – Mazi Nnamdi Kanu v. Federal Republic of Nigeria.
The IPOB leader who filed the petition through his younger brother, Prince Emmanuel Kanu, recalled that Justice Nyako who had earlier granted him bail, revoked the bail and issued a bench warrant against him, leading to his abduction in Kenya on June 19, 2021 and extraordinarily renditioned to Nigeria to face his ongoing trial.
He recounted that on June 29, 2021, he was secretly produced before Justice Nyako in violation of Section 36(3) and Section 36(4)(a) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Kanu said that without the presence of his Counsel of Record, Justice Nyako conducted a hearing that led to his remand in the custody of the Department of the State Services (DSS) that was responsible for his extraordinary rendition.
The petition further stated, “Further, the said hearing was also scheduled and conducted without Notice to the Complainant’s said Counsel of record in violation of Section 36(6)(c) of the Constitution.
“Additionally, the said hearing/remand proceedings which was conducted and which led to the detention/remand of the Complainant to was conducted without the Complainant being heard which violated the provisions of Section 169 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015; and the Complainant was, pursuant to said hearing committed to the custody of the State Security Services cell instead of a prison, as is required by law.
“The Complainant remains detained to this day.”
The detained IPOB leader further recalled that at a hearing on April 17, 2024, his counsel filed an application before Justice Nyako to restore his revoked bail in line with the judgment and pronouncement of the Supreme Court on December 15, 2023.
The Supreme Court in its judgment had held, “The respondent was on bail and therefore in custody of the law when his home was illegally invaded by heavily armed military officers of the appellant causing him to flee from his home and the country to secure his life.
“In the face of such an attack, it was responsible for him to flee to secure his life and physical well being.
“That is what any normal and reasonable human being would do in that circumstance to preserve his life and physical well-being.
“It is glaring that the consequences of that attack were intended or foreseeable. This is not arguable.
“The appellant’s officials knew that their invasion of the respondent’s home caused him to run away to secure his life and physical well-being.
“Yet during proceedings in the pending criminal case against him, they applied that his bail be revoked, that a warrant for his arrest be issued and his sureties forfeit their respective bail bond and that his trial in his absence be ordered because he had jumped bail and is not in court to stand his trial.
“But they knew that their illegal actions made it impossible for the respondent to be in court for his trial.
“In a situation such as this one, where the prosecution has taken extrajudicial actions against the defendant in a pending criminal case brought by it and made it impossible for the defendant who is on bail to be in court for his or her trial, it is wrong to treat such a defendant as having jumped bail in the sense that he is running from prosecution or running to avoid prosecution in the pending criminal case in respect of which he was granted bail.
“The respondent did not intentionally and knowingly fail to appear in court. It was therefore wrong and malicious for the appellant that had caused the respondent to flee from his home and country to secure his life and that had therefore caused his unavoidable absence from court, to inform and thereby deceive the trial court that the respondent had jumped bail.
“On the basis of this deception, the appellant applied to the trial court for an order revoking the respondent’s bail, forfeiting the amount securing the bail bond of his sureties and an order issuing a bench warrant for his arrest.
“It is glaring from the record of the proceedings in the trial court that it granted the said orders prayed for by the appellant with knowledge of the fact that the respondent’s absence from court was caused by the invasion of his home by army officers of the appellant.
“Therefore, the trial court knew that the said extra judicial and illegal actions of the appellant made it impossible for the respondent to be in court for his trial, that the respondent’s absence is not intentional or deliberate absence and that the respondent is not running from prosecution or running to avoid prosecution.
“In the light of the foregoing, the trial court acted unfairly and without rational and legal justifiable basis by its decisions revoking the respondent’s bail, forfeiting the amount securing the bail bond of his sureties and its order issuing a bench warrant for his arrest.
“The orders were made on the basis of the false assumption that the respondent jumped bail.
“It was on the basis of the order of arrest of the respondent obtained under the false pretense that he jumped bail that his extradition or rendition from Kenya was carried out”, Per Emmanuel Akomaye Agim, JSC.
The petition noted, despite the clear decision of the apex court, Justice Nyako denied Kanu’s application for restoration of his bail in contravention of the constitution which provided in Section 287(1): “The decisions of the Supreme court shall be enforced in any part of the Federation by all authorities and persons, and by courts with subordinate jurisdiction to that of the Supreme Court”.
According to Kanu, “The decision (by Justice Nyako) was also a flagrant abuse of her discretion and disrespect to the Supreme Court of Nigeria.”
Kanu also recalled how he applied for transfer from the DSS custody because of the restrictions being placed on him by the DSS with regard to his constitutional right of access to his counsel, the DSS’s eavesdropping on his conversations with his counsel – geared to his defense, and seizure of his legal documents.
The petition stated, “This application was summarily refused by the said Justice, who also refused the Complainant’s objection to being subjected to trial under the said restrictions placed on his preparation for his defense.
“Consequently, the Complainant on September 24, 2024, applied to recuse the said Justice from conducting the trial of his case, and the Justice entered an Order affirming the recusal; but it now appears that the said Justice has reversed herself and is thus presently designing to schedule the Complainant’s case to be tried before her.”
According to the petition, from the forgoing, “Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako has committed judicial misconduct in the handling of the Complainant’s case and the misconduct is such that has resulted in incalculable and continuing damage to the Complainant, including particularly the continuing loss of Complainant’s liberty to this day.
“The conduct of the Justice is tantamount to judicial fraud and amounts to non-adherence to the Constitution and established rules of law.
“In particular, the Justice’s refusal to reinstate the Complainant’s bail amounts to disobedience to the said determination, such that it also amounts to a clear and brazen violation of provisions of the Nigerian Constitution which states at Section 287(1) that: ‘The decisions of the Supreme Court shall be enforced in any part of the Federation by all authorities and persons, and by courts with subordinate jurisdiction to that of the Supreme Court.’
“Wherefore, the Complainant prays to the Council to discipline His Lordship, Honorable Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako in accordance with the pertinent Rules for disciplining erring judicial officers.”
