The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Tuesday, struck out an application filed by the convicted leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, seeking his transfer from the prison in Sokoto State.
The court, in a ruling that was delivered by Justice James Omotosho, held that the application was incompetent.
Kanu, who was sentenced to life imprisonment by the court on November 20, 2025, contended in a motion that he personally signed that his detention in the Sokoto Custodial Center would hamper his ability to effectively appeal his conviction.
In the eight grounds he raised in support of the motion ex parte marked FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, the embattled IPOB leader noted that the court, after finding him guilty of the seven-count terrorism charge preferred against him by the Federal Government, sentenced him to life imprisonment in any correctional facility in the country except Kuje Correctional Centre, Abuja.
“That 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 requires the applicant’s personal interface with the registry of this honourable court and the Court of Appeal in Abuja.
“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 added.
Kanu maintained that it would be in the interest of justice for him to be transferred to a facility near Abuja to enable him to effectively prosecute his appeal.
Consequently, he prayed the court for an order to compel the federal government and/or the Nigerian Correctional Service (NCoS) to forthwith transfer him from the Sokoto Correctional Facility to a custodial facility within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.
In the alternative, 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.”
The court had, on December 4, 2025, declined to hear the motion on the basis that Kanu’s younger brother, Prince Emmanuel, who sought to move it, is not a legal practitioner.
Consequently, on December 8, 2025, when the matter came up, a lawyer from the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria, LACoN, Demdoo Asan, appeared on behalf of the detained IPOB leader.
The court subsequently slated the matter for hearing, even as it ordered service of the processes on both the FG and the prison authority.
Meanwhile, at the resumed proceedings on Tuesday, the lawyer from the LACoN, Asan, announced his decision to withdraw from the case, citing irreconcilable differences with the applicant.
Asan further told the court that despite his repeated efforts, none of Kanu’s relatives showed up to depose to an affidavit in support of the prison transfer request.
“My lord, from the 8th of December till today, I have been in phone conversations with Kanu’s relatives for one of them to come to our office to depose to the affidavit, but they have not shown up,” the government lawyer lamented.
Besides, he accused Kanu of attempting to dictate to him how the case should be conducted, a development he said was incompatible with his duties as an officer of the court.
“The applicant wants to dictate the tune of the matter. He wants to write what I will say while in court.
“However, I cannot do that as an officer of the court,” Asan added, saying that after consulting his superiors, he had decided it was not right for a defendant to dictate how a lawyer should conduct a case in court.
Invoking Order 50 Rule 1 of the Federal High Court Rules, the lawyer formally withdrew from the matter.
In a ruling, Justice Omotosho acceded to Asan’s request to pull out of the case.
“When the matter was brought, it was an incompetent suit. However, in the interest of justice, I ordered that parties be served, but this has not been done,” Justice Omotosho explained before he struck out the motion.
Comments
Post a Comment