Court refuses Nnamdi Kanu’s motion for transfer from Sokoto Correctional Centre
The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Monday, declined to grant a motion ex-parte filed by Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB).
Supreme news reports that Kanu, who was convicted on terrorism offences, is seeking “an order compelling the complainant (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.”
Alternately, Kanu 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 (Kanu) to effectively prosecute his constitutionally guaranteed right of appeal.”
Justice James Omotosho held that Kanu’s application, moved by a lawyer from the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria (LACON), Demdoo Asan, cannot be granted through ex-parte motion.
Justice Omotosho held that the respondents; the Federal Government and NCoS, ought to be put on notice for them to respond appropriately in the interest of justice, before the request could be granted.
Earlier when the matter was called, Asan announced appearance for the Kanu.
Moving the motion, the lawyer said the application sought two prayers.
Justice Omotosho then called the attention of Asan to the Relief One which sought an order “compelling” the Federal Government and NCoS to transfer the convict to a correctional facility that is close to the jurisdiction of the court.
The judge asked the lawyer if he wanted to go by the relief, especially with respect to the word, ‘compel’ used in the motion ex-parte and Asan agreed that Relief One should be struck out.
The judge also asked Asan if the prosecution and the NCoS, where the convict is currently kept, ought to be served or not.
“You are from Legal Aid Council counsel? Do you think it is by ex-parte motion this application ought to be granted, having it in mind that judgment was delivered when the two parties were present?
“Also, among the respondents to obey the order is the correctional service and you think it is through 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 asked.
Responding, Asan admitted that the respondents (prosecution and the NCoS) needed to be put on notice before the matter could be decided judiciously.
“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 said.
“So, do you agree that the respondents should be heard and that this application can not be taken now?” Justice 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,” Asan applied.
Justice Omotosho, therefore, struck out Relief One in Kanu’s motion and ordered that the prosecution and the NCoS be served for them to respond in the interest of justice.
“A law school student will know that this application cannot be granted ex-parte,” the judge said.
Asan, however, explained to the court that he was on leave when he was called by his superior officer to come and take up Kanu’s matter.
The judge also faulted Kanu’s notice of appeal which was filed before the Nov. 20 judgment.
“Counsel, do you have your notice of appeal?”
Responding, Asan restated that he was only instructed to take up the brief.
The judge then directed the court registrar to show the lawyer the notice of appeal filed by Kanu from the court file upon which the convict based his application.
Justice Omotosho then asked Asan to read out the date the notice of appeal was filed.
“Because you are coming in new as a lawyer and I expect you know the law, what date is that?” the judge asked.
“This notice of appeal is dated 10th of November my lord, that was before the judgment,” Asan responded.
Justice Omotosho, therefore, said based on the judgment delivered on Nov. 20, there was no notice of appeal before him.
The lawyer then said they would do the needful.
The judge consequently adjourned the case until Jan. 27, 2026, to enable the applicant serve the necessary parties and for the application to be taken.
Supreme news reports that Justice Omotosho had, on Dec. 4, fixed today for hearing of the motion ex-parte after the court declined to give audience to Kanu’s younger brother, Prince Emmanuel, who announced appearance for the IPOB leader inspite of not being a lawyer.
The judge adjourned to enable the applicant engage a lawyer to represent him in court.
