The Federal High Court in Abuja set December 8 as the hearing date for a request ex parte filed by Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the outlawed Indigenous People of Biafra, demanding release from the Sokoto Correctional Facility.
On November 20, Kanu was convicted of all seven counts of terrorist accusations brought against him by the federal government and sentenced to life in prison.
Following his sentence, Kanu was transferred to the Sokoto Correctional Facility as the court voiced worry about his safety, stating that the Kuje Correctional Facility might not be appropriate for him due to previous jail breakouts.
Kanu separated from his legal team and chose to represent himself before the delivery of judgment.
During Thursday’s hearings, the trial judge, Justice James Omotosho, set the date for the hearing after declining to hear Kanu’s younger brother, Emmanuel Kanu, who stated his support for the IPOB leader despite not being a lawyer.
When the matter was called, Justice Omotosho requested the appearance of a counsel.
However, Emmanuel, who is not a lawyer, rose to declare his support for Kanu.
Justice Omotosho informed 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 insisted that only a legal practitioner may move the application and encouraged Emmanuel to hire a lawyer or seek representation from the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria.
“When I said representation, I did not mean his (Kanu’s) father, brother, sister, or relations. 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 thereabouts. So get a counsel to move the application,” the judge said.
When Emmanuel asked for the next adjourned date, Justice Omotosho responded that, while there were matters on the docket on Monday, Kanu would be accommodated.
“Thank you, sir,” Emmanuel responded.
The judge admonished Kanu against misleading the public about how he compiled his appeal record.
Omotosho stated that, contrary to a claim made by one of Kanu’s previous lawyers, Aloy Ejimakor, who was later hired as a consultant, the offender does not need to be present in court for his record to be completed.
“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.
Omotosho asked lawyers in court if Kanu’s presence was necessary to compile his record, but they said no.
The judge advised Emmanuel to hire a knowledgeable lawyer and cautioned any lawyers who were inexperienced in appellate procedure from misleading the public.
“I think it is high time we address the right opinion. Appropriate legal advice is necessary,” he said.
After refusing to hear Emmanuel, the judge adjourned the case to December 8 for the consideration of the current application.
Kanu sought an order that, because he could not be present in court or chambers to physically move the motion, it be declared moved in absentia and in accordance with the application.
He also requested an injunction forcing 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 requested 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 to appeal.”
Kanu argued in the motion filed FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, citing eight grounds, that he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment on November 20, and that the judge ordered his custody in any Nigerian correctional facility 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 kilometers 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 opined that it would be in the interest of justice for him to be transferred to a facility near Abuja to effectively prosecute his appeal.
