The family of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has called for sanctions against the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho and Justice Binta Nyako, accusing them of disobeying court orders and undermining the judiciary.
In a statement signed by Prince Emmanuel Kanu, the family alleged that both judges ignored multiple rulings—both within Nigeria and internationally—that ordered Kanu’s release.
They expressed dismay that Justice Nyako only complied with her own recusal order after the intervention of the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun.
They further accused Justice Tsoho of attempting to overturn a valid ruling through a “dubious memo” and Justice Nyako of refusing to honor her own decision.
“The blatant disobedience to valid court orders by Justice Tsoho and Justice Nyako has brought the judiciary into disrepute.
“In any country that values the rule of law, both the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court and the presiding judge who issued the recusal order should be held accountable,” the statement read.
The family insisted that the Nigerian government was criminalizing self-determination, a right they argue is legally protected.
They linked Kanu’s trial to historical injustices against the Igbo people, referencing “the events of 1966” and the Biafran War.
“At the heart of this case is the attempt by the Nigerian state to criminalise self-determination, a legally guaranteed right.
“The persecution of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu reflects historical injustices faced by the Igbo people, including the events of 1966,” the family stated.
They also criticized the government’s proscription of IPOB, arguing that “a court in Abuja ruled that IPOB is not an unlawful group, yet the government declared it a terrorist organisation without due process as required by the Nigerian Constitution.”
Warning against selective adherence to court rulings, the family stated, “This matter is far from over, and by the end of this trial, the handling of the case by the Nigerian judiciary will be exposed for all to see.”
They also challenged the legality of IPOB’s proscription, stating, “No society under common law can use the outcome of a civil suit to confer criminal liability on an accused person.
“The proscription of IPOB, which underpins the charges, was made without a fair hearing.”
The Kanu family vowed to continue their push for justice, insisting that the outcome of the trial would have lasting consequences for Nigeria’s judiciary and international reputation.
