Former Kaduna State governor, Nasir El-Rufai, has formally petitioned the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, requesting the removal of Justice R.M. Aikawa of the Federal High Court, Kaduna, from presiding over his ongoing trial and that of his co-defendant.
Justice Aikawa is currently handling a 10-count charge brought by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission, which involves allegations of abuse of office, money laundering, and fraud amounting to N579.6 million and $1.1 million.
The court has fixed April 14 for the hearing of a bail application in the matter.
In a petition dated April 9, 2026, El-Rufai appealed for the case to be reassigned to another judge within the Kaduna division.
He also urged the CJN to take necessary administrative actions to preserve the credibility of the judicial process and maintain public trust in the judiciary.
The former governor argued that Justice Aikawa’s continued handling of the case was inappropriate, citing concerns over alleged bias and judicial conduct. He described the situation as “untenable in law, prudence, common sense and judicial ethics.”
“Given the pending disciplinary complaints, the history of the proceedings, and the current refusal to recuse, and every sign of judicial capture of the subject judge, the continued handling of this criminal matter, which involves my liberty and other fundamental rights, by Hon. Justice R. M. Aikawa is untenable in law, prudence, common sense and judicial ethics,” he said.
El-Rufai further noted that there are unresolved petitions against the judge, including allegations of bias, which are currently before both the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court and the National Judicial Council (NJC).
He maintained that the circumstances surrounding the case make it necessary for the matter to be reassigned, describing it as an unusual convergence of factors that demand urgent intervention.
He said “Pending petitions against the same Judge: Multiple unresolved complaints alleging bias are still before the Chief Judge of the Federai High Court and the National Judicial Council.
“Identity of subject matter: The earlier proceedings and the present criminal charge involve the same litigant, arose within the same judicial division, and engage overlapping factual and political contexts.
“Objective appearance of bias: Even if actual bias is denied, the appearance of bias is unavoidable, which the law treats as equally fatal.
“Institutional risk: Allowing Justice Aikawa to continue with this criminal trial risks undermining public confidence in the Judiciary, compromises the integrity of the proceedings, and exposes the entire process to almost certain appellate reversal—by which I would already have suffered irreparable injustice and extended loss of personal liberty. “With respect, we submit to Your Lordship, the Chief Justice of Nigeria, that the only proper option Justice Aikawa ought to have taken was: a. assignment ab initio to another Judge in the Kaduna Division, or b. referral to His Lordship, the Chief Judge, for re-assignment or transfer to another Division of the Federal High Court, if necessary.
“It is the failure of Justice Aikawa to adopt either of these honourable options that has now necessitated this update and the provision of further information to my earlier petition of February 2025, and Your Lordship’s expedited intervention.”
“In light of the foregoing, we respectfully urge Your Lordship, the Chief Justice of Nigeria, to: direct the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court to implement the immediate re-assignment of the pending criminal matter involving my codefendant and me from Hon. Justice R. M. Aikawa; assign the same either to the other Judge currently sitting in the Kaduna Division or to another Judge of the Federal High Court; furnish this update, the additional information herein, and the conduct of Justice Aikawa to the Preliminary Assessment Committee for consideration; and issue such further administrative directions as may be necessary to safeguard the integrity of the proceedings, uphold public confidence in the administration of justice and protect the integrity of the Judiciary.”
