The Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday fixed December 8 for the hearing of an ex parte motion filed by the detained leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, seeking his transfer from the Sokoto Correctional Facility.
Kanu was on November 20, 2025, convicted on all seven counts of terrorism levelled against him by the Federal Government and sentenced to life imprisonment. He was subsequently moved to the Sokoto Correctional Facility after the court raised concerns about his safety at the Kuje Custodial Centre, which has experienced multiple security breaches.
Before his conviction, Kanu had disengaged his legal team and elected to conduct his own defence.
At Thursday’s proceedings, Justice James Omotosho set the hearing date after refusing to recognise the appearance of Kanu’s younger brother, Emmanuel, who attempted to stand in for him despite not being a lawyer.
When the case was called and the judge asked for legal representation, Emmanuel rose to announce his appearance. Justice Omotosho immediately declined to hear him.
“This ex parte motion cannot be moved on the convict’s behalf because you are not a legal practitioner,” the judge said, stressing that only a duly qualified lawyer could move the application.
He advised Emmanuel to engage counsel or approach the Legal Aid Council for representation.
“When I said representation, I did not mean his father, brother, sister, or relations. I mean his counsel,” he said.
The judge noted that Emmanuel could not legally represent a human being in court unless he was an 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,” Justice Omotosho added.
After Emmanuel asked for the next adjourned date, the judge assured him that despite a busy docket on Monday, the court would accommodate the matter.
Justice Omotosho also cautioned the public against misconceptions about the compilation of Kanu’s record of appeal. He faulted comments by one of Kanu’s disengaged lawyers, later engaged as a consultant, Aloy Ejimakor, who claimed that the convict needed to be physically present in court for the process to begin.
“That is an erroneous opinion,” the judge said. “A defendant may not be in court to compile a record. His attendance is not required. The rights of a defendant differ from the rights of a convict.”
The judge further posed the question to lawyers present in court, who unanimously confirmed that the convict’s presence was unnecessary for compiling the record of appeal.
Reiterating his advice to Emmanuel, Justice Omotosho warned that lawyers without adequate knowledge of appellate procedure should stop misleading the public. “Appropriate legal advice is necessary,” he said.
Having declined to take Emmanuel’s application, the judge adjourned the case to December 8 for hearing of the pending motion.
In the ex parte application, personally signed by Kanu, he asked the court to deem the motion moved in absentia, arguing that it was impossible for him to be present in court to move it himself.
He sought an order directing the Federal Government and the Nigerian Correctional Service to immediately transfer him from the Sokoto Correctional Facility to a custodial centre within the jurisdiction of the court.
Alternatively, he requested relocation to a facility close to Abuja such as the Suleja or Keffi custodial centres so he could effectively pursue his constitutionally guaranteed right of appeal.
In the motion marked FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, Kanu cited eight grounds, including his conviction and life sentence on November 20, and the subsequent order permitting his detention in any correctional facility except Kuje.
He argued that his transfer to Sokoto more than 700 kilometres from Abuja had made it impossible for him to personally prepare and file his notice and record of appeal as an unrepresented convict.
“All persons critical to assisting the applicant in preparing his appeal, including his relatives, associates and legal consultants, are based in Abuja,” the motion stated.
Kanu said his continued detention in Sokoto imposed “exceptional hardship” and risked defeating his right of appeal, contrary to Section 36 of the Constitution.
He maintained that justice would be better served if he were held in a facility near Abuja to enable him to pursue his appeal effectively.
