The Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday fixed December 8 for the hearing of a motion ex parte filed by the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, seeking to be transferred from the Sokoto Correctional Facility.
Kanu, on November 20, 2025, was found guilty of all seven counts of terrorism charges preferred against him by the Federal Government and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Following his sentence, Kanu was taken to the Sokoto Correctional Facility, after the court expressed concern for his safety, noting that the Kuje Correctional Facility might not be suitable for him due to previous prison breaks recorded there.
Before judgment was delivered, Kanu disengaged his legal team and opted to defend himself.
At Thursday’s proceedings, the trial judge, Justice James Omotosho, fixed the date for the hearing after declining to give audience to Kanu’s younger brother, Emmanuel Kanu, who announced his appearance for the IPOB leader despite not being a lawyer.
When the case was called, Justice Omotosho asked for the appearance of a lawyer.
However, Emmanuel, who is not a lawyer, rose and announced his appearance.
Justice Omotosho told him that such an application could not be moved by him.
“This ex parte motion cannot be moved on the convict’s behalf because you are not a legal practitioner,” Justice Omotosho stated.
The judge, insisting that only a legal practitioner can move the motion, advised Emmanuel to either engage a lawyer or approach the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria for representation.
“When I said representation, it is not his (Kanu’s) father, brother, sister or relations I meant. I mean his counsel.
“I am not going to the merit of this application now in the interest of justice, but you cannot represent a human being when you are not a lawyer; you can only represent a corporate body.
“Therefore, you cannot move the application because you are not a solicitor or advocate of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.
“For you to be qualified as a lawyer, it will take you another six years or thereabout. So get a counsel to move the application,” the judge said.
When Emmanuel asked for the next adjourned date, Justice Omotosho said that although there were cases on the docket on Monday, Kanu would be accommodated.
“Thank you, sir,” Emmanuel responded.
The judge cautioned against misleading the public over how Kanu could compile his record of appeal.
Justice Omotosho said that, contrary to a remark by one of Kanu’s disengaged lawyers who was later engaged as a consultant, Aloy Ejimakor, the convict did not need to be in court for his record to be compiled.
“Let me advise generally so that you don’t delay the process. The issue of appeal, I must not pretend that I am not part of society. Mr Ejimakor granted an interview, talking about the deprivation of the defendant (Kanu) to compile his record. That is an erroneous opinion. The defendant may not be in court to compile a record.
“His attendance is not required, though the appearance of his representative may be required. The rights of a defendant are different from the rights of a convict,” Justice Omotosho noted.
Justice Omotosho also put the question to lawyers present in court on whether Kanu’s attendance was required before his record could be compiled, and they responded in the negative.
Advising Emmanuel again to engage a knowledgeable lawyer, the judge added that any lawyer grossly inadequate in appellate procedure should stop misleading the public.
“I think it is high time we address the right opinion. Appropriate legal advice is necessary,” he said.
Having refused to give audience to Emmanuel, the judge adjourned the matter to December 8 for the hearing of the pending application.
In the motion ex parte personally signed by him, Kanu sought an order that, owing to the impossibility of his being present in court or chambers to personally move the motion, it should be deemed moved in absentia and in terms of the application.
He also sought an order compelling the Federal Government and/or the Nigerian Correctional Service “to forthwith transfer him from the Sokoto Correctional Facility to a custodial facility within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.”
Alternatively, he sought an order transferring him to the court’s “immediate environs, such as the Suleja or the Keffi Custodial Centre, for the purpose of enabling the applicant to effectively prosecute his constitutionally guaranteed right of appeal.”
Citing eight grounds in the motion marked FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, Kanu stated that he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment on November 20, and that the judge ordered his detention in any correctional centre in Nigeria except Kuje.
“On the 21st of November, 2025, the applicant was transferred to and is currently detained at the Sokoto Correctional Facility, which is over 700 kilometres from Abuja.
“The applicant, who is currently unrepresented by counsel, intends to personally exercise his constitutional right of appeal against the conviction and sentence.
“The preparation of the notice of appeal and the record of appeal require the applicant’s personal interface with the Registry of this Honourable Court and the Court of Appeal in Abuja.”
The motion further stated, “All persons critical to assisting the applicant in preparing his appeal, including his relatives, associates, and legal consultants, are based in Abuja.
“The applicant’s continued detention in Sokoto renders his constitutional right to appeal impracticable, occasioning exceptional hardship and potentially defeating the said right, in violation of Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended),” he said.
Kanu argued that it would be in the interest of justice for him to be transferred to a facility near Abuja to effectively prosecute his appeal.
punch.ng
FOLLOW US ON:
