Kanu in court, Wednesday 
The Biblical drama of King Herod washing his hands off the trial of Jesus Christ was re-enacted today, December 23, at the  Federal High Court, Abuja as Justice A. R. Mohammed literarily washed his hands off the case of detained director of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu



  Kanu who appeared today before the judge began by saying he has an objection to make when his case was mentioned. Though his counsel, Vincent Obetta  urged his client to wait for the case to be fully mentioned before any further objection, but Justice  A. R. Mohammed intervened saying : “It will be good to appreciate and take into consideration the objection raised by the defendant.”

 With  the judge’s permission,  Kanu  said: “Thank you very much my lordship, but my objection is that I will not receive a fair trial before this court. The information I got is that I will not receive a fair trial before this court.

 “I will not sacrifice the due process of law because of speedy court process over the principle of natural process on the altar of speedy release. In other words, I would rather remain in detention than subject myself to a trial that I know amounts to perversion of justice.

 “Your lordship, previous court rulings have been given by courts of competent jurisdiction in this country, Nigeria which were not carried out by the DSS.”

 In his objection, the   prosecuting counsel, Mohammed Diri argued against Kanu's objections saying that Kanu is putting the cart before the court. 

 “First he objects trial by your lordship because he believes he is not going to get fair trail, two he said, the trial before your lordship will amount to perversion of justice.”

 “He said the rule of the law is clear and that the defendant may object to his trial at any time.

 “Your lordship before the defendant can object to his trial, he has to file an application objecting his trial before this court.”, he said  adding that application the defendant is expected to exhibit special evidences why he should not be tried by a particular court.

 Diri said that this will enable the court and the prosecutors to properly reply to the defendant.

 Quoting section 396 sub section of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, Diri said an objection trial may be raised by the defendant only after the plea of the defendant is taken but not before.

 He further urged the court to overrule the objection of the first defendant and order that the charges filed by the prosecution before the court be read to the three defendants for the purpose of taking their plea.

 In his reply, the defending counsel said the argument by Diri is only an effort to puncture his client’s objection, adding that he is in tandem with the objection made by Kanu.

 “We believe that whatever comes out of this court should be justice for the three parties – the state, the court and the accused persons,” Obetta said.

 In his ruling, Mohammed said he sees nothing wrong in the defendant who he defined as someone who is learned and understands the legalities of his objection.

 He said the first defendant is not objecting the validity of the charges against him but on the confidence he has in the court, adding that there is nothing wrong with the defendant’s objection which is in order.

 The judge stated that he was standing down from the case as Kanu had the right to reject the trial, saying “after all justice is rooted on confidence. If any of the parties has no confidence in the court, he has the right to say so.”

 He noted that the prosecution would have done the same thing if they were in Kanu’s shoes.

 Mohammed therefore said: “I therefore remit this case file to the chief judge of this court to take necessary action.”