The Federal High Court in Abuja has refused a request by detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, to be moved from Sokoto prison to a facility closer to the Federal Capital Territory.
Justice James Omotosho rejected the application on Monday, saying the request brought by a Legal Aid Council of Nigeria lawyer, Demdoo Asan, could not be granted through an ex parte motion.
Kanu was convicted of terrorism-related offences on November 20 and sentenced to life imprisonment. His family has rejected the verdict and said they will appeal.
After his sentencing, Kanu was taken to the Sokoto Correctional Centre to serve his sentence because the court ruled that Kuje Custodial Centre in Abuja would not be suitable for him.
However, Kanu filed a motion asking the trial court to transfer him from the Sokoto facility to any other prison closer to Abuja, suggesting either Suleja in Niger State or Keffi in Nasarawa State.
In the motion, Kanu asked for “an order compelling the complainant (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.”
He also 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.”
On December 4, Justice Omotosho had scheduled Monday for the hearing of the ex parte motion after refusing to allow Kanu’s younger brother, Prince Emmanuel, to represent him since he is not a lawyer.
The judge told him he could not represent his brother and directed that a lawyer should be hired or one should be provided by the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria.
In his ruling on Monday, Justice Omotosho said the Federal Government and the Nigerian Correctional Service must be notified to allow them to respond properly in the interest of justice before any order could be made.
When the matter was called, Asan announced his appearance for Kanu and presented the motion, explaining that it contained two prayers.
Justice Omotosho pointed to the first request, which sought an order “compelling” the Federal Government and the Nigerian Correctional Service to transfer the convict to a prison within the court’s jurisdiction.
The judge asked the lawyer if he intended to proceed with that request, especially because of the word “compel” used in an ex parte application. Asan agreed that the first request should be removed.
The court also asked whether the prosecution and the Nigerian Correctional Service should be served with the application.
“You are from the Legal Aid Council. Do you think it is by ex parte motion that this application ought to be granted, bearing in mind that judgment was delivered when both parties were present? Also, among the respondents to obey the order is the correctional service. Do 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 asked.
In response, Asan admitted that the respondents needed to be notified before the matter could be decided.
“My Lord, the respondents have the right to be heard. Usually, the court can make an order that they should be put on notice,” he said.
“So, do you agree that the respondents should be heard and that this application cannot be taken now?” the judge asked.
“Yes, my Lord, they should be heard. We will be applying that the complainant and other parties involved should be put on notice,” Asan replied.
As a result, Justice Omotosho struck out the first request and ordered that the prosecution and the Nigerian Correctional Service be served to allow them to respond.
“A law school student will know that this application cannot be granted ex parte,” the judge remarked.
Asan explained that he had been on leave when a superior officer directed him to take up the matter.
The court also criticized the notice of appeal filed by Kanu, which was submitted before the judgment was delivered.
“Counsel, do you have your notice of appeal?” the judge asked.
Asan responded that he had only been instructed to take up the case.
Justice Omotosho then directed the court registrar to show the lawyer the notice of appeal in the court file and asked him to read the date.
“This notice of appeal is dated November 10, my Lord, that was before the judgment,” Asan said.
The judge ruled that, based on the judgment delivered on November 20, there was no valid notice of appeal before the court.
Asan said they would “do the needful.”
The court adjourned the matter until January 27, 2026, to allow the applicant to serve the necessary parties and for the application to be heard properly.
An ex parte motion is a legal request made by one party without the other party being present or notified. The court typically uses this procedure only in urgent situations where notifying the other party could defeat the purpose of the request.
