The family of Nnamdi Kanu, the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has called for sanctions against Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, and Justice Binta Nyako, accusing them of blatant disobedience to court orders and undermining the rule of law.

In a statement signed by Prince Emmanuel Kanu, the family accused both judges of disregarding valid rulings from Nigerian and international courts that have ordered Kanu?s release.

They expressed dismay that it took the intervention of the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, for Justice Nyako to comply with her own recusal order. Additionally, they alleged that Justice Tsoho attempted to overturn a valid court ruling through a dubious memo, while Justice Nyako refused to honour her own decision.

The Kanu family further accused the Nigerian government of criminalising self-determination, which they insist is a legally protected right. They linked Kanu?s trial to the historical injustices faced by the Igbo people, including the 1966 pogrom and the Biafran War.

They also condemned the government?s reliance on an illegal ex-parte proscription order to label IPOB as a terrorist organisation?despite a separate court ruling that IPOB is not unlawful.

The family warned that selective adherence to court orders would further erode the credibility of the Nigerian judiciary, calling for an impartial trial for Kanu. They urged the public to stand against judicial impunity and ensure that the judiciary remains independent and just.

Their statement reads: ?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.

?A judge refusing to obey a court order, and a chief judge attempting to overturn a valid ruling, raise serious concerns about judicial integrity.

?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.

?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.

?Selective adherence to court orders must be addressed. 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.

?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 family vowed to continue their fight for justice, asserting that the outcome of Kanu?s trial would have lasting implications for Nigeria?s legal system and international standing. (Vanguard)

Update news