An Abuja Federal High Court has addressed the request of Nnamdi Kanu, the convicted leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), concerning his prison transfer. While the court did not grant his immediate request, it also did not completely dismiss the possibility of a future transfer.
Court Rejects Ex-Parte Motion
On Monday, Judge James Omotosho declined to grant Mr. Kanu’s request to be moved from the Sokoto prison to a correctional facility in Abuja or its surrounding areas. The request was presented via an ex-parte motion, meaning it was filed to be heard without notifying the opposing parties.
Judge Omotosho ruled that such a request could not be decided without first informing the respondents—the federal government and the Nigerian Correctional Service (NCoS). He emphasized that it was necessary for these parties to be given the opportunity to respond in order to ensure a fair and just process.
This decision signifies that the court has not entirely rejected Mr. Kanu’s plea. Instead, the judge’s actions suggest a willingness to consider the request on its merits, after the prosecution and prison authorities have had a chance to present their perspectives.
Background of the Case
Nnamdi Kanu, who holds dual citizenship in Nigeria and the United Kingdom, is the leader of the proscribed IPOB, a group advocating for the secession of Nigeria’s South-east region and neighboring states to form an independent Biafra. On November 20th, Mr. Kanu was convicted on terrorism charges and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Judge Omotosho, who presided over the case, ordered that Mr. Kanu be held in a secure prison anywhere in the country, with the exception of Abuja, due to a history of jailbreaks in the capital.
Following his conviction, Mr. Kanu filed an ex-parte application seeking a court order to compel his transfer from the Sokoto Correctional Facility to a custodial facility within the court’s jurisdiction.
Alternatively, he requested a transfer to a facility in the court’s immediate vicinity, such as the Suleja or Keffi Custodial Centre, arguing that this would enable him to effectively pursue his constitutionally guaranteed right of appeal.
Previous Hearing and Legal Representation
On December 4th, an attempt by Mr. Kanu’s brother, Prince Emmanuel, to move the application on behalf of the convict was rejected by Judge Omotosho. The judge stated that Mr. Emmanuel, not being a lawyer, was not qualified to present the application. He advised Mr. Emmanuel to either hire a lawyer or seek assistance from the Legal Aid Council. The hearing was then rescheduled to Monday.
Monday’s Court Proceedings
At Monday’s hearing, Mr. Demdoo Asan, a lawyer from the Legal Aid Council, appeared on behalf of Mr. Kanu.
The judge drew the lawyer’s attention to the prayer in the application that sought an order “compelling” the federal government and the NCoS to transfer Mr. Kanu to a correctional facility near the court’s jurisdiction.
Judge Omotosho questioned the appropriateness of using the word “compel” in an ex-parte motion, especially considering that the judgment had been delivered with both parties present. He also raised concerns about whether the NCoS could be ordered to transfer Mr. Kanu without being given the opportunity to respond.
“You are from the Legal Aid Council, counsel? Do you think it is through an ex-parte motion that this application ought to be granted, bearing in mind that judgment was delivered when the two parties were present?” the judge inquired.
“Also, among the respondents to obey the order is the correctional service, and you think it is through an ex-parte motion that the court can make the order for his transfer?”
“Don’t you think this application should have come by motion on notice,” the judge further asked.
Mr. Asan conceded that the respondents (prosecution and the NCoS) should be notified before a decision was made.
“My lord, the respondents have the right to be heard. Usually, the court can make an order that they should be put on notice,” the lawyer stated.
“So, do you agree that the respondents should be heard and that this application cannot be taken now?” Mr. Omotosho asked further.
“Yes, my lord, they should be heard. We will be applying that the complainant and other parties involved should be put on notice,” Mr. Asan responded.
Consequently, Judge Omotosho struck out the first prayer in Mr. Kanu’s motion and directed that the prosecution and the NCoS be served so they could respond in the interest of justice.
“A law school student will know that this application cannot be granted ex-parte,” the judge remarked.
Mr. Asan explained that he had been on leave and was called in by his superior officer to handle Mr. Kanu’s case.
Issues with Notice of Appeal
The judge also pointed out a potential problem with Mr. Kanu’s notice of appeal, which serves as the basis for his request for a transfer from the Sokoto prison.
Mr. Kanu’s request for a transfer to a prison in Abuja or its environs was motivated by his desire to pursue his appeal against his conviction in the Abuja division of the Court of Appeal.
However, upon reviewing the notice of appeal, the judge discovered a dating error that made it appear as though the document had been filed before the judgment it was intended to challenge.
“Counsel, do you have your notice of appeal?” the judge asked.
Mr. Asan replied that he had only been instructed to take up the brief.
The judge then instructed the court registrar to show the lawyer the notice of appeal filed by Mr. Kanu, which was the basis for the convict’s application.
Mr. Omotosho then asked Mr. Asan to read out the date the notice of appeal was filed.
“Because you are coming in as a new lawyer and I expect you know the law, what date is that?” the judge asked.
“This notice of appeal is dated 10th November my lord, that was before the judgment,” Mr. Asan responded.
Mr. Omotosho stated that, based on the judgment delivered on November 20th, there was no valid notice of appeal before him.
The lawyer then said they would take the necessary steps to correct the issue.
The case was adjourned until January 27, 2026, to allow the applicant to serve the necessary parties and for the application to be properly considered.
