Justice Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia of the Federal High Court in Abuja has recused herself from the criminal case filed by the Nigeria Police Force against cryptocurrency entrepreneur Linus Williams, popularly known as BLord, arising from impersonation allegations made by social media activist Martins Vincent Otse, popularly known as VeryDarkMan, directing that the matter be returned to the Honourable Chief Judge for reassignment to another court.
The case was adjourned to May 19, 2026, for mention before a new judge.
However, the recusal has triggered pointed questions from Nigerians and legal observers who are asking why the judge chose to withdraw at this stage, after having presided over every critical phase of the case, including the arraignment on April 1, the remand that kept BLord in Kuje Correctional Centre for 16 days including Easter, the bail hearing on April 17, and the bail conditions that required deposit of his international passport and production of two sureties.
The timing of the withdrawal, after the judge had exercised significant judicial power over the defendant’s liberty for weeks, has drawn particular scrutiny, with some commentators describing the sequence as raising uncomfortable questions about the administration of justice and suggesting that a recusal should have come before, not after, the defendant spent over two weeks in prison.
At the proceedings on Sunday, BLord was present in court. VeryDarkMan made a brief appearance before exiting the courtroom premises. Nigerian human rights activist Omoyele Sowore, who had been instrumental in securing BLord’s bail during earlier proceedings and had publicly condemned the detention, was also in attendance.
Justice Ofili-Ajumogobia announced her decision to recuse herself from the case without, according to reports from the proceedings, providing detailed public reasons for the withdrawal. She directed that the case file be returned to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court for reassignment to another judge.
The adjournment to May 19 means BLord’s case, which began on April 1 and has already consumed nearly a month of court time, will essentially restart before a new judge who must familiarise themselves with the entire case before proceedings can meaningfully advance.
The question that has dominated public reaction to the recusal is simple: why now?
Legal observers have noted that Justice Ofili-Ajumogobia presided over every significant proceeding in the case without any indication that she intended to withdraw.
On April 1, she arraigned BLord on the six-count charge and remanded him in Kuje Correctional Centre after the prosecution opposed bail. The remand decision meant BLord, a first-time defendant on non-violent charges, was sent to one of Nigeria’s most high-security correctional facilities.
During BLord’s 16 days in Kuje, including the Easter holiday period, the judge was the presiding judicial officer with the power to reconsider the remand or expedite the bail hearing. No recusal was mentioned during this period.
On April 17, she heard the bail application, noted that VDM’s lawyer had withdrawn opposition to bail, and granted bail on self-recognisance with conditions including deposit of BLord’s international passport and production of two sureties. The decision to grant bail, while welcomed, came only after extended detention.
On April 21, BLord was finally released from Kuje after his passport arrived from Anambra State and his bail conditions were perfected, three days after bail was granted because of logistical delays.
The case was then adjourned to April 27 for continuation, at which point, rather than proceeding, the judge recused herself.
The sequence, arraignment, remand, weeks of detention, bail hearing, bail grant, release, and then recusal, has left many asking what changed between the bail hearing and the recusal that made the judge decide she could no longer preside over the case.
“You remanded him. You kept him in prison. You granted him bail. You set conditions. And now you pull out? What happened between then and now?” one legal commentator asked on social media.
Others have been more direct, with some tinting the recusal with suggestions of impropriety. “Something does not add up,” several users posted, with some explicitly describing the sequence as having the appearance of corruption, though no specific evidence of wrongdoing has been presented.
The suggestion, articulated by multiple commentators, is that a judge who had reason to recuse should have done so at the earliest opportunity, ideally before exercising the power to remand a defendant in prison, not after the defendant had already served weeks in custody and been released on bail.
BLord faces a six-count charge bordering on alleged cybercrime, impersonation, and fraud, filed by the Inspector-General of Police following a petition by VeryDarkMan.
The charges stem from allegations that the 27-year-old businessman fraudulently used the identity, image, and brand of VeryDarkMan to promote his business ventures, including the Billpoint application.