By ABUJA’s Ikechukwu Nnochiri
Nnamdi Kanu, the convicted leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), filed an appeal to be transferred from the jail in Sokoto State, but the Federal High Court in Abuja rejected it on Tuesday.
In a decision rendered by Justice James Omotosho, the court determined that the application was incompetent.
In a motion he personally signed, Kanu, who was given a life sentence by the court on November 20, 2025, argued that his incarceration at the Sokoto Custodial Center would make it more difficult for him to successfully appeal his conviction.
The troubled IPOB leader stated in the eight grounds he presented in support of the motion ex parte marked FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015 that the court sentenced him to life in prison in any correctional facility in the nation, with the exception of Kuje Correctional Centre, Abuja, after finding him guilty of the seven-count terrorism charge that the Federal Government had preferred against him.
The applicant was moved to the Sokoto Correctional Facility on November 21, 2025, and is presently being held there, more than 700 kilometers from Abuja.
“The applicant plans to personally use his constitutional right of appeal against the conviction and punishment; he is not currently represented by counsel.
“The applicant must personally interact with the registry of this honorable court and the Court of Appeal in Abuja in order to prepare the notice of appeal and the record of appeal.
“Everyone who is essential to helping the applicant prepare his appeal is headquartered in Abuja, including his family, friends, and attorneys.
In contravention of Section 36 of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) Constitution, he said, “the applicant’s continued detention in Sokoto renders his constitutional right to appeal impracticable, causing exceptional hardship and potentially defeating the said right.”
Kanu insisted that moving him to a facility close to Abuja would be in the best interests of justice so he could successfully pursue his appeal.
He therefore asked the court to issue an order compelling the Nigerian Correctional Service (NCoS) and/or the federal government to immediately move him from the Sokoto Correctional Facility to a custodial facility under this Honourable Court’s jurisdiction.
Alternatively, he requested a transfer to the court’s “immediate environs, such as the Suleja or the Keffi Custodial Center, for the purpose of enabling the applicant to effectively prosecute his constitutionally guaranteed right of appeal.”
On December 4, 2025, the court denied the request because Prince Emmanuel, Kanu’s younger brother, was not a lawyer.
As a result, when the issue arose on December 8, 2025, Demdoo Asan, an attorney from the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria (LACoN), represented the imprisoned IPOB leader.
Even as it ordered the processes to be served to the prison administration and the FG, the court later scheduled a hearing on the subject.
Asan, the LACoN attorney, declared his decision to resign from the case at the resumed sessions on Tuesday, claiming irreconcilable disagreements with the applicant.
Asan also informed the court that, in spite of his repeated attempts, none of Kanu’s family members appeared to testify in favor of the prison transfer request.
The government attorney bemoaned, “My lord, from December 8th until 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.”
In addition, he claimed that Kanu was trying to dictate to him how the matter should be handled, which was inconsistent with his responsibilities as a court officer.
“The applicant wants to set the tone for the situation. He wants to write down what I’ll say in court.
Asan continued, “However, I cannot do that as an officer of the court,” stating that he had determined it was improper for a defendant to prescribe how a lawyer should present a case in court after conferring with his superiors.
The attorney formally withdrew from the case, citing Order 50 Rule 1 of the Federal High Court Rules.
Justice Omotosho granted Asan’s request to withdraw from the case in a decision.
It was an incompetent suit when it was filed. Before dismissing the application, fairness Omotosho said, “But in the interest of justice, I ordered that parties be served, but this has not been done.”
