The Federal High Court in Abuja has declined to grant an ex parte application filed by the detained leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, seeking his transfer from the Sokoto Correctional Centre to a custodial facility closer to the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).
The ruling was delivered on Monday by Justice James Omotosho, who held that the nature of the application made it impossible for the court to issue such an order without hearing from the Federal Government and the Nigerian Correctional Service (NCoS), both listed as respondents.
Kanu, who was convicted of terrorism-related offences on November 20 and subsequently handed a life sentence, is currently being held at the Sokoto Correctional Centre. His family has rejected the judgment and vowed to challenge it at the Court of Appeal.
Following his conviction, the court determined that the Kuje Custodial Centre in Abuja was no longer suitable for his detention. Dissatisfied with his relocation to Sokoto, Kanu sought an order directing the authorities to move him to a centre within the court’s jurisdiction specifically proposing facilities in Suleja (Niger State) or Keffi (Nasarawa State).
In his motion, filed through Legal Aid Council lawyer Demdoo Asan, Kanu requested that the court compel the Federal Government and the NCoS to “forthwith transfer” him to a custodial centre within Abuja’s vicinity to enable him to effectively pursue his constitutional right of appeal.
Justice Omotosho, however, questioned the propriety of presenting such a request through an ex parte motion one that is heard without notifying the other party. The judge emphasized that given the circumstances, the respondents were entitled to be heard before any directive could be issued.
At Monday’s session, the judge queried Asan over the first prayer in the motion, which sought an order compelling the transfer of the convict. He asked whether the Legal Aid counsel considered it appropriate to make such a demand ex parte. Asan ultimately conceded and agreed that the first relief should be struck out.
Justice Omotosho further reminded the counsel that even a law student should understand that the court could not grant such an application without notice to the opposing parties. He then ordered that the Federal Government and the NCoS be served with the application so they could respond accordingly.
The court also revisited an earlier incident on December 4, when Kanu’s younger brother, Prince Emmanuel, attempted to represent him in court despite not being a legal practitioner a move the judge rejected.
During proceedings, Justice Omotosho also scrutinized the notice of appeal already in the court’s file. He directed Asan to inspect the document, where it was discovered that the notice was dated November 10, ten days before the judgment was delivered. The judge held that such a filing was invalid, as a notice of appeal must be filed after judgment, not before.
Asan told the court he had only been instructed to handle the matter and would take appropriate steps to correct the error.
With the first relief struck out and the need for proper service on the respondents established, Justice Omotosho adjourned the matter to January 27, 2026, to allow all necessary parties to be duly notified and for the substantive application to be heard.
The ruling underscores the court’s insistence on due process, particularly in a case as sensitive and high-profile as Kanu’s.
