The Federal High Court in Abuja has refused Nnamdi Kanu’s request to be moved from the Sokoto Correctional Centre, but the judge did not dismiss the plea entirely.
On Monday, Justice James Omotosho declined to hear Kanu’s transfer request because it was filed as an ex-parte motion, meaning it was brought without informing the opposing parties—the Federal Government and the Nigerian Correctional Service (NCoS).
The judge ruled that such a sensitive application cannot be decided without giving the respondents an opportunity to present their positions.
This means the court has not ruled out Kanu’s request; instead, it asked that the Federal Government and the NCoS be formally notified before the court can decide on the matter.
Justice Omotosho’s directive indicates that he intends to hear the case fully once all parties submit their responses.
According to NAN, Kanu—the leader of the outlawed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB)—was convicted on 20 November on terrorism-related charges and sentenced to life imprisonment.
He was found guilty for leading violent campaigns pushing for the secession of the South-East and neighbouring regions as an independent Biafran state.
In delivering the sentence, the judge ordered that Kanu be held in any secure prison across the country except Abuja due to the city’s record of jailbreaks.
Following this, Kanu sought an order compelling authorities to move him from Sokoto to a facility closer to Abuja, such as the Suleja or Keffi custodial centres, to allow him effectively pursue his appeal.
At a previous sitting on 4 December, Kanu’s brother, Prince Emmanuel, attempted to argue the motion on his behalf but was stopped because he is not a lawyer.
The judge advised that a licensed legal practitioner or the Legal Aid Council should handle the matter. The hearing was then adjourned to Monday.
When the case resumed, Demdoo Asan from the Legal Aid Council appeared for Kanu.
Justice Omotosho questioned him on why the application used the word “compel” and why it was filed as an ex-parte motion despite the fact that the Federal Government and NCoS were present during the judgment that led to his conviction.
The judge reminded the lawyer that such an application must be served on the other parties.
Mr Asan eventually agreed that the respondents had the right to be heard, prompting the court to strike out the first prayer in the motion and order that the Federal Government and NCoS be formally served.
The judge remarked that “a law school student” should know that such a request cannot be granted ex-parte.
Mr Asan explained that he was called in at the last minute while he was on leave.
It was also recalled that Kanu dismissed his team of senior lawyers in October and has been filing all court documents by himself until his conviction in November.
Judge Flags Issue With Kanu’s Appeal
Justice Omotosho also noted a flaw in Kanu’s notice of appeal, which formed the basis of his transfer request.
The appeal document was dated 10 November — ten days before the judgment delivered on 20 November — making it invalid.
After reviewing the document, the judge told the lawyer that, legally, no valid notice of appeal had been filed.
Mr Asan acknowledged the error and said steps would be taken to correct it.
The court adjourned the matter to 27 January 2026, giving time for the Federal Government and NCoS to be notified and for all parties to return for proper hearing of the application.
