Aloy Ejimakor: Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s Constitutional Rights and Judicial Injustices

In a recent statement, Aloy Ejimakor, Special Counsel to Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, defended Kanu’s actions when he requested that Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako recuse herself from presiding over his case in September 2024. According to Ejimakor, Kanu’s request was a lawful exercise of his constitutional right and was made out of a profound loss of confidence in the judge, not from any personal animosity or disregard for the judicial system.

Ejimakor outlined several key reasons why Kanu lost faith in the judge’s impartiality. First, he cited an incident in June 2021, when Kanu was remanded without the presence of his former counsel during a hearing, a constitutional error that significantly prejudiced him. Second, Kanu was placed in the DSS facility rather than a regular prison, a decision that the counsel argued was both legally unfounded and presumptive, suggesting a biased view that Kanu was a flight risk. Third, when Kanu applied to be transferred to a less restrictive facility, the judge rejected the request, further eroding confidence in her ability to impartially oversee the case.

Another key issue raised by Ejimakor was the judge’s refusal to reinstate Kanu’s bail after the Supreme Court had ruled against its revocation. Ejimakor pointed to this as a blatant violation of constitutional rights, further confirming the judge’s lack of impartiality. Additionally, despite the grave risks posed by Kanu’s detention in DSS custody, the judge ordered an accelerated trial, which Ejimakor argued was a critical misstep.

Ejimakor stressed that the continued detainment of Kanu without trial for an extended period violates the Constitution, particularly the provision that forbids indefinite detention without trial. He also noted that the delays in assigning a new judge to the case have only compounded the legal issues surrounding Kanu’s detention.

In light of these complications, Ejimakor stated that Mazi Kanu’s continued incarceration has now become unconstitutional. With the recusal order still standing, any attempt to proceed with the trial under the previous judge would lead to further legal entanglements. Ejimakor concluded that Kanu’s case will not return to Egypt, signaling a shift in the legal strategy and reinforcing Kanu’s rights to a fair trial.