Nnamdi Kanu’s Courtroom Showdown: “You Have No Jurisdiction”
The trial of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), took a dramatic turn when he openly challenged the authority of Justice Binta Nyako to preside over his case. In an intense courtroom exchange, Kanu declared his lack of confidence in the judge, insisting she had already recused herself and had no jurisdiction to continue handling the matter.
Kanu’s Bold Move: “I Want to Speak”
The proceedings began with Kanu expressing his desire to speak for himself rather than be represented by his legal team.
“I want to take over,” he told the court, prompting Justice Nyako to ask if he intended to replace his lawyers. When Kanu confirmed, it became clear that he was prepared to directly confront the court over its handling of his case.
Kanu argued that his presence in court was out of respect for the judiciary, but he strongly opposed Justice Nyako's continued involvement after her supposed recusal in September.
Heated Exchange Over Jurisdiction
A significant point of contention was the chief judge’s directive, which returned Kanu’s case to Justice Nyako. The IPOB leader insisted that the memo could not override a prior enrolled court order.
“I don’t recognize the authority of this court to preside over my case,” Kanu stated firmly.
“Why is it that when it comes to my case, everything is turned upside-down?”
In response, Justice Nyako reminded him that he was free to challenge the chief judge’s directive through an appeal.
But Kanu was unyielding:
“If the chief judge disagrees, he should appeal the decision. You cannot preside over this case—not now, not today, not ever. You stand recused, and you must leave my case. I don’t need you in my case. You are biased. Tell the chief judge that Nnamdi Kanu said so.”
At this point, the courtroom atmosphere grew tense, as Kanu went as far as to call the court a “shrine to injustice,” refusing to subject himself to what he saw as an unfair legal process.
Prosecution Pushes for Trial Date
Despite Kanu’s resistance, the prosecuting counsel pressed forward, requesting a definite date for trial.
“In view of the fact that the defendant has indicated that he would not make a formal application, I apply that your lordship gives us a definite date for trial,” the prosecution stated.
This request further agitated Kanu, who accused the prosecution of serving political interests.
“Because of the money they are paying you from the AGF’s office, a grown-up man like you is here supporting evil. The rule of law says you should go on appeal,” he fired back.
Justice Nyako’s Decision: Case Adjourned Indefinitely
Faced with mounting resistance, Justice Nyako made a decisive announcement:
“The only decision I can make right now is that in light of what is happening in court, I am going to adjourn this case sine die (indefinitely).”
But Kanu was quick to challenge her once more.
“You have no jurisdiction to adjourn anything. None whatsoever. You cannot make an order without jurisdiction. The memo from the chief judge cannot confer jurisdiction upon you.”
A Moment of Silence and Uncertainty
Kanu’s final statement left the courtroom in a stunned silence for five minutes. His bold argument seemed to throw everyone into deep contemplation, as legal observers, journalists, and spectators tried to process the weight of his claims.
What Happens Next?
This development raises serious questions about the future of Kanu’s trial. Will the case remain in legal limbo? Will the chief judge intervene? Kanu’s defiance has added yet another layer of complexity to his already controversial legal battle.
One thing is certain—this courtroom drama is far from over.
Comments