Detained Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu on Valentine’s day send a message to the lovers, supporters of the Biafra Republic agitation and the general public that he would remain in detention until impartial and unbiased judge takeover the case of alleged terrorism filed against him by the Federal Government of Nigeria, narrating how the judiciary has been biased against him since years of his detention.

In an open letter to the general public, the detained Biafra leader who has continued his agitation for the declaration of Biafra Republic, stated below in quotes:

“Greetings to all men and women of goodwill in Nigeria and elsewhere in the world.

I have been compelled by the events of the past few days to take the unusual step of writing this Open Letter for the singular purpose of calling the attention of the general public to the serial executive and judicial fraud being perpetrated against me since my extraordinary rendition in 2021. The details are as follows:

1, In a judgment entered on 1st March 2017, the Federal High Court Abuja ruled that the “IPOB is not an unlawful group”.

At the time, it received widespread publicity which can be verified from: vanguardngr.com/2017/03/kanu-i…. This landmark ruling (made by the court before it turned unjust) emanated in a criminal proceedings that required “proof beyond reasonable doubt” and in which the federal government and my humble self presented our respective cases.

Alas! Instead of the federal government to go on appeal as the law mandated (if they are dissatisfied with the judgment), the former Attorney-General (Abubakar Malami) went behind closed doors with a letter signed by late Abba Kyari and got IPOB proscribed/tagged a terrorist group in an ex parte proceedings conducted without notice to me or to the IPOB.

This abominable incident was the earliest sign yet that the government and its judiciary have struck an unholy and fraudulent alliance to deny me my rights and thereby imperil the lives and liberty of millions who identity with IPOB.

2. On 26th October 2022, a Federal High Court declared my extraordinary rendition and detention as unconstitutional, stating that: “the manner of arrest and detention of the Applicant (Mazi Nnamdi Kanu) in Kenya, his continued detention in Abuja, his subjection to physical and mental trauma by the Respondents, the inhuman and degrading treatment meted out to the Applicant amounts to a brazen violation of the Applicant’s fundamental right to dignity of his person and threat to life under Section 34 (1) (a) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)”.

The Court further ordered the federal government to apologize to me and pay me compensation. In a responsible and well-ordered society, run by a responsible government, this judgment is sufficient to have ended my lengthy detention and encourage the federal government to constructively engage me on the issue of the self-determination agitation that triggered this whole saga.

3. Pedal back to 13th October 2022 when the Court of Appeal held that: “The Courts must never shy away from calling the executive to order when they resort to acts of “executive lawlessness”.

The duty of the Courts is to maintain a balance between ensuring that law and order is obeyed and the protection of the individual from oppressive actions by the executive.

By the forcible abduction and extraordinary rendition of the Appellant (Mazi Nnamdi Kanu) from Kenya to this country on the 27th day of June 2021, in violation of international and state laws, the lower Court or indeed any Court in this country is divested of jurisdiction to entertain charges against the Appellant”.

Despite the clarity of this judgment and its comportment with reason, the federal government refused to release me from detention while it went behind closed doors and connived with three other justices of the court of appeal who fraudulently and swiftly sat on appeal over the judgment and practically destroyed it by issuing what they termed “a stay of execution”.

One may then ask: Is it not abominable for a court to stay a judgment the government already disobeyed? In a plethora of cases, the Supreme Court has held that anybody who disobeys a related court order cannot be given any judicial relief until such order is obeyed. This is a sound reasoning that applied to everybody but is fraudulently overlooked when it comes to my case.

4, Fast forward to 15th December 2023 when the Supreme Court sent back my case to the Federal High Court for trial. For avoidance of doubt, that was not the only decision the Supreme Court made.

It also decided that my bail should not have been revoked and it went on to state clearly that the judge exhibited significant and unacceptable bias by revoking my bail.

In a sane society, one would expect that when the High court received my case from the Supreme Court and hankered down for trial, it was also duty-bound to restore my bail in line with the pronouncement of the apex court.

But that did not happen. Why? Well, your guess is as good mine and that is: the Court connived with the federal government to continue my detention in violation of Section 287 of the Nigerian Constitution while they plotted to railroad me through an unfair trial that already has a predetermined verdict.

5, On 24th September 2024, I decided that I have had enough of taking my chances at getting justice from a judge that, in June 2021, sent me to secret police detention without fair hearing, later refused to transfer me to prison to better prepare for my trial and capped it all by refusing to restore my bail and instead ordered an accelerated trial in the face of the reality that I will never get a fair trial whilst detained at the DSS.

These are the major reasons that compelled me to request recusal of the judge and having consented to it, she proceeded to make an order removing herself from my case.

That order was never challenged on appeal; thus it remains extant to this day. But instead of the Chief judge of the Federal High Court to do the lawful thing by assigning my case to another judge, he connived with the federal government to eat crow and send my case to a judge that stands recused by a valid order.

To conclude this Open Letter, let me make it clear that it should in no way be construed to mean that there are no decent judges in Nigeria that can be trusted to deliver even-handed justice in my case.

That is not the issue. Instead, the issue is that my case is deliberately being shielded from judges and justices that are deemed to be committed to doing justice even when it means that the federal government must lose.

Be that as it may, if it will take the rest of my life in detention to produce me before a proper and impartial court, so be it. But let me say this for the world to know: I will not succumb to any trial conducted by any judge or court whose jurisdiction does not pass constitutional muster. Not now, not ever. Thank you all,” signed by Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, dated 14th February, 2025.

We had reported that Justice Binta Nyako of Federal High Court in Abuja has adjourned indefinitely after the detained leader of Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu as seen in a privileged video footage during February 10, 2025 court session, staged a resistance protest, insisting while confronting the judge face to face including the prosecuting counsel, Adegboyega Awomolo that Justice Binta who is an indigene of Katsina State, same state with former President Muhammadu Buhari is biased, saying, Justice Nyako who had held a political position of Katsina State Attorney General and Commissioner of Justice that her court is not a court of law but a shrine of injustice, accusing the judge of poke nosing with authorities to pass wrong judgement against him inorder to be left off the hook by the Federal Government, her son, Abdul-Aziz Nyako and her husband, retired Vice Admiral Murtala Nyako who was once Chief of Naval Staff, Deputy Chief of Defence Staff, pioneer former military Governor of Niger State, two times Governor of Adamawa State who were impeached twice by Adamawa State House of Assembly for misconduct, one of the soldiers that fought against Biafra during Nigeria civil war, a current member of the ruling All Progressives Congress, APC who is facing corruption charges alongside his son in a criminal allegation filed before court of law since 2015 by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC over alleged cases of abuse of office, criminal conspiracy, theft and money laundering.

We had October, 2024 reported that the Chief Judge of Federal High Court in Nigeria, Justice John Terhemba Tsoho has rejected the verbal plea by the detained Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB leader, Nnamdi Kanu for the trial judge in the case, Justice Binta Nyako to withdraw being the judge over the lawsuits.

Justice Tsoho stated that Kanu’s case was reassigned to Justice Nyako due to its prolonged nature, dating back to 2015. Given that Justice Nyako had handled the case for the most part, she was deemed the most suitable judge to see it through to its conclusion.

However, the Chief Judge directed that if at the next hearing of the case, Kanu still insists on recusing Justice Nyako, he must file a written motion with an affidavit, stating all the grounds for requesting the recusal.

We had reported in September 2024 that Justice Binta Nyako of Federal High Court sitting in Abuja have withdrawn from the case of  detained Biafra Leader, Nnamdi Kanu after the trial could not commence following the Biafra Leader’s personal confrontation with the judge for the second time in the year.

We had reported in May 2024 that, in a rare case in the history of legal proceedings in the world, Nnamdi Kanu, the detained Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB helped himself at the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja and played the role of a lawyer with full energy and vibrant command of words with fearless loud voice defended himself  with face to face confrontation with the trial judge, Justice Binta Nyako and the Federal Government Prosecution counsel, Adegboyega Awomolo.

Kanu is being prosecuted by the Federal Government on a seven-count bordering on terrorism.