- It also debunked the statement attributed to its Chief Judge, John Tsoho, that Kanu’s arrest and detention were illegal
The Federal High Court of Nigeria has said media reports claiming a judge withdrew from the terrorism trial of Biafra nation agitator, Nnamdi Kanu, are false and misleading.
The trial court said no judge on its bench stepped down from the trial of the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB).
It also debunked the statement attributed to its Chief Judge, John Tsoho, that Kanu’s arrest and detention were illegal.
In a statement on Tuesday in Abuja, the court described a media publication credited to the Chief Judge as mischievous, damaging in intent, and should be disregarded in its entirety.
The statement was signed by Malam Sulaiman Amida Hassan, the Chief Registrar of the Court.
It read in part: “The attention of the management of the Federal High Court has been drawn, with great concern, to an online reportage.
“The Court unequivocally refutes the false and misleading report alleging that the Honourable Chief Judge, The Hon. Justice John T. Tsoho, has stepped down from Nnamdi Kanu’s case and made statements regarding the legality of his arrest.
“This claim is entirely unfounded, fictitious, grossly mischievous, damaging in intent, and should be disregarded in its entirety.
“The true position is that The Honourable Justice Tsoho, in his capacity as Chief Judge, has reassigned Nnamdi Kanu’s case from Honourable Justice Binta Nyako to another (‘new’) judge.
“The report referred to is, therefore, totally spurious. The defense team should hence prepare to receive instructions regarding the case, as may be issued by the new judge.
“The Federal High Court strongly cautions against deliberate misinformation aimed at misleading the public and eroding confidence in the judicial system.
“We urge the general public to be wary and rely only on verified information from official court sources.
“The Court remains steadfast in upholding justice through due process of the law.
“Any further inquiries should be directed to the Court’s Information Department,” the statement said.
Discussion about this post