The Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday, December 8, refused an ex parte request by Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra, seeking to be moved from the Sokoto Correctional Centre to a custodial facility closer to the Federal Capital Territory.
Justice James Omotosho declined the application, which was presented by Legal Aid Council lawyer Demdoo Asan, ruling that such a request could not be granted through an ex parte motion.
Kanu was convicted of terrorism-related offences on November 20 and sentenced to life imprisonment, a decision his family has rejected and vowed to challenge.
After the verdict, he was transferred to the Sokoto Correctional Centre when the court found Kuje Custodial Centre unsuitable.
He later asked the court to order the Federal Government and the Nigerian Correctional Service to move him to a custodial centre within the court’s jurisdiction, proposing Suleja in Niger State or Keffi in Nasarawa State.
In the application, Kanu sought “an order compelling the complainant 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,” as well as “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 to effectively prosecute his constitutionally guaranteed right of appeal.”
READ ALSO: Abia Governor Otti Meets Nnamdi Kanu Behind Bars
The matter had first come up on December 4, when Justice Omotosho refused to recognise Kanu’s younger brother, Prince Emmanuel, who had attempted to appear for him despite not being a lawyer.
During Monday’s proceedings, the judge questioned Asan about the request, particularly the use of the word “compel” in an ex parte motion. Asan agreed that the first relief should be struck out.
Justice Omotosho also noted that the Federal Government and the NCoS must be notified, stating, “A law school student will know that this application cannot be granted ex parte.”
The judge further queried the validity of Kanu’s notice of appeal, which was dated November 10, ten days before the judgment. After reviewing it, he held that no valid notice of appeal was before the court.
The case was adjourned until January 27, 2026, to allow the necessary parties to be served and for the application to be heard.