Justice Nyako has been told to recuse herself from Nnamdi Kanu’s Trial.
Ejes Gist News reports, popular rights activist Deji Adeyanju has revealed why Justice Binta Nyako of the Abuja Federal High Court should recuse herself from the trial of pro-Biafra agitator Nnamdi Kanu.
Also Read : Dollar To Naira Exchange Rate Today October 25th 2021: See Black Market & CBN Official Rate
Justice Nyako’s husband is from the Fulani tribe, according to Adeyanju, so the judge should recuse himself from Kanu’s case.
The human rights activist told DAILY POST exclusively that the judge’s husband had represented and hosted several meetings and conferences both inside and outside Nigeria.
This, he explained, makes it difficult to believe that the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader will receive justice in her court.
Adeyanju remarked while criticising Justice Nyako’s decision to deny Kanu’s request to be transferred from the Department of State Services’ custody to the Kuje Correctional Centre.
The application was denied due to security concerns, according to Justice Nyako.
“As I said earlier, Kanu may not get justice from Justice Binta Nyako because her husband is a prominent Fulani in this country,” said the convener of Concerned Nigerian. He has hosted several Fulani meetings in his home in Adamawa, both in Nigeria and the subregion.
“So there is bound to be that fiat because we all know Kanu is anti-Fulani in this country; if I were Nyako, I would recuse myself from the trial, knowing full well that people may misinterpret her as unjust, just as I am now of the opinion that she is unjust in the trial.
“By denying him access to Kuje while fully aware that they kidnapped him in Kenya in this manner, they are implying that he may not receive justice in her court. In the case of MKO Abiola vs. the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Supreme Court stated that “once the average citizen goes home thinking the judge is unfair, the judge recuses himself/herself from the trial.” This is how I feel about Justice Nyako’s decision.
“That application, of course, should have been granted. Why would you keep someone who says, ‘I don’t feel safe in DSS custody?
Adeyanju claimed that the Nigerian government was attempting to postpone Kanu’s trial to keep him in custody indefinitely.
He went on to say that the ruling appears to back up those who claim the Nigerian government is colluding with the court against Kanu.
“Trial should be about the accused person’s ability to defend himself,” Adeyanju continued, “and the constitution has said the court should provide him with the ability, facility, and time to defend himself.”
“How can he defend himself if he is not mentally stable in DSS custody?” It’s not as if he’ll get away with it, so remanding him in Kuje will give him the time and space he needs to prepare for trial, which is the essence of the process.
“The purpose of a trial is not to persecute or victimise the defendant, but to ensure that the state, defendant, and victim are all treated fairly.” So, if the defendant receives no justice, we cannot claim to have acted justly and fairly.
“This must go beyond their desire to prosecute Nnamdi Kanu because it now appears that they are doing everything they can to keep him.
“Remember how they refused to produce him in court on the last adjourned date?” Knowing them and their methods, they only want to postpone the trial and keep him in custody indefinitely. They would always present him for trial if they took him to a correctional facility.
“Those who suspect a collusion between the court, DSS, and the government may be correct, because the court, DSS, and the government had no jurisdiction to deny this application.”