In a bold move to reinforce courtroom decorum and protect judicial integrity, a Federal High Court has barred the sister-in-law of detained IPOB leader, Nnamdi Kanu, from attending further proceedings after she was caught livestreaming the court session without authorization.
The incident, which occurred during a high-profile hearing related to Kanu’s long-standing trial, has ignited debate over digital access, press freedom, and the limits of courtroom transparency in politically sensitive cases.
According to court officials, the woman, whose name was not disclosed in official statements, was found using a mobile phone to stream the ongoing hearing via social media. This act violated the court’s strict ban on unauthorized recordings or broadcasts, particularly in cases of national security and heightened public interest.
Presiding Judge, Justice Binta Nyako, was quick to act after court security flagged the activity. Without hesitation, she ordered the individual out of the courtroom and issued a standing directive barring her from future attendance at Kanu’s trial.
“The courtroom is not a theatre for social media performance,” Justice Nyako declared. “This court will not tolerate acts that undermine its procedures or threaten the integrity of these proceedings.”
Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), remains a deeply polarizing figure in Nigeria’s political and legal landscape. His trial has drawn intense scrutiny from both local and international observers, with supporters often demanding full transparency and public access to hearings. But legal experts argue that transparency must be balanced with order and respect for judicial protocol.
By livestreaming without court approval, Kanu’s sister-in-law crossed a legal line that courts across the world fiercely protect: the right to control what is recorded and shared from within their chambers.
Unsurprisingly, the incident has triggered a flurry of reactions online. While some activists decried the decision as heavy-handed and questioned why the public cannot witness a trial of such magnitude, others defended the court’s position, noting that livestreams could compromise ongoing investigations, influence public perception, or risk contempt charges.
“She should have known better,” said a legal analyst, Barr. Ngozi Emeka. “These are not Instagram Lives or YouTube vlogs—we’re talking about legal proceedings with national implications.”
The courtroom clash serves as a timely reminder of how quickly the digital age is testing traditional systems. While technology offers unprecedented access to information, it also raises complex questions about privacy, protocol, and responsible use of media in judicial spaces.
As Nnamdi Kanu’s trial proceeds under a watchful national and global eye, the court appears intent on maintaining a firm grip on how justice is observed—and who gets to watch it unfold.
