The mistrial of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu – Aloy Ejimakor
The goal of this essay is to improve public understanding of the arcane dimensions and complexities arising in the case of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu from September 24, 2024 (when Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako was recused) to February 10, 2025, when Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was unexpectedly summoned to appear before the same Justice.
Despite our displeasure with the summons to appear before a Judge who no longer had jurisdiction, we decided to honor the summons out of respect for the sanctity of the judiciary and the overriding need to avoid the legal ramifications of an in-absentia proceeding that would be detrimental to our Client.
So we attended with the assurance and confidence that the proceedings would be null and void as a matter of law because the Judge, having been recused by an existing court order, lacked the necessary jurisdiction to conduct the hearing.
As a result, when the case was called, I immediately went on the record to state that we appeared “under protest” and that our “limited” appearance was specifically aimed at protecting Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s constitutional rights, and thus should not be misconstrued as submitting to the court’s jurisdiction.
Given this scenario, it follows that, as far as it was conducted by a recused Judge, the infamous proceedings of 10th February 2025 carried all the elements of a “mistrial” of some sort, to the extent that the purported order of adjournment sine die made by the Judge at the close of the “hearing” is obviously nugatory and has no legal or judicial effect. The following are the additional arguments for our position:
First and foremost, Honorable Justice Murtala-Nyako’s departure from the case as trial judge was a “judicial event” as evidenced by the COURT ORDER she issued on September 24, 2024. A straightforward reading of the Order reveals that Her Lordship graciously consented to the recusal, which alone adds to the Order’s tenacity.
Second, the Order is still in effect today and has never been appealed. As a result, it remains legitimate in all ramifications. To be clear, the Judge cannot REVIEW, REOPEN, or REVISIT the matter of her recusal because she became FUNCTUS OFFICIO on September 24, 2024, when the order was entered and enrolled.
In Ukachukwu v. Uba (2005) 18 NWLR (Pt.956), it was held that: “The phrase “functus officio” has been defined to mean a task performed, fulfilling a function, or discharging and accomplishing the intended purpose, and when it is referred to a Court, that Court will have no further force or authority, and it will lack competence or jurisdiction in the matter. It cannot examine, reopen, or revisit the aforementioned subject save under rare circumstances.”
Third, it is important to note that the post-recusal Summons issued to Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, which brought us to court on February 10, 2025, cannot be blamed solely on the Court. The prosecution grandfathered this infamous unconstitutionality in a letter to the same Court dated December 5, 2024, requesting that the matter be rescheduled for a hearing.
In our fast response, and after considering whether the Letter pushed the boundaries of prosecutorial misconduct, we responded with a letter opposing re-listing the matter before a Judge bound by an existing Order of Recusal. To yet, the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court has not responded to our letter.
