The Federal High Court in Abuja, presided over by Justice James Omotosho, has scheduled the hearing of a motion ex parte filed by the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, for the 8th of December .
The application seeks to transfer the convict from the Sokoto Correctional Facility to a center closer to Abuja.
The court fixed the new date on Thursday, the 4th of December, 2025, after the trial judge declined to entertain submissions from Kanu’s younger brother, Emmanuel Kanu, who attempted to announce his appearance on behalf of the IPOB leader despite not being a lawyer.
Nnamdi Kanu was found guilty of all seven counts of terrorism charges brought against him by the Federal Government on the 20th of November, 2025, and subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment.
Prior to the judgment, Kanu had dismissed his legal team, opting to defend himself.
Following the sentence, the court had expressed concern for the convict’s safety and ordered his transfer to the Sokoto Correctional Facility, noting that the Kuje Correctional Facility might not be suitable due to previous prison breaks recorded there. The Sokoto facility is located over 700 kilometers from Abuja.
When the transfer motion was called up on Thursday, the 4th of December, Justice Omotosho requested the appearance of a lawyer.
Emmanuel, who is not a lawyer, rose to announce his appearance, prompting the judge to swiftly dismiss his claim to representation.
Justice Omotosho told him directly: “This ex parte motion cannot be moved on the convict’s behalf because you are not a legal practitioner.” The Judge firmly insisted that only a qualified legal practitioner could move the motion. He further advised Emmanuel to either retain a lawyer or seek assistance from the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria.
The Judge elaborated on the strict requirements for legal representation, stating: “When I said representation, it is not his (Kanu’s) father, brother, sister or relations I meant. I mean his counsel.” He stressed the legal principle that a non-lawyer cannot represent an individual in court, adding: “I am not going to the merit of this application now in the interest of justice, but you cannot represent a human being when you are not a lawyer; you can only represent a corporate body.”
The Judge concluded his advice to Emmanuel by telling him: “Therefore, you cannot move the application because you are not a solicitor or advocate of the Supreme Court of Nigeria. For you to be qualified as a lawyer, it will take you another six years or thereabout. So get a counsel to move the application.” When Emmanuel asked for the next adjourned date, the Judge assured him that Kanu’s matter would be accommodated on December 8, to which Emmanuel responded: “Thank you, sir.”
Justice Omotosho used the opportunity to caution against public misinformation regarding the appeal process, particularly a remark by one of Kanu’s former legal consultants, Aloy Ejimakor. The judge clarified that the convict’s presence is not mandatory for compiling his record of appeal.
The Judge stated: “Let me advise generally so that you don’t delay the process. The issue of appeal, I must not pretend that I am not part of society. Mr Ejimakor granted an interview, talking about the deprivation of the defendant (Kanu) to compile his record. That is an erroneous opinion. The defendant may not be in court to compile a record. His attendance is not required, though the appearance of his representative may be required. The rights of a defendant are different from the rights of a convict,” Justice Omotosho noted. He polled the lawyers present in the courtroom, who unanimously confirmed that Kanu’s attendance was not required for the record compilation.
The Judge advised Emmanuel once more to secure a knowledgeable lawyer, warning that “any lawyer grossly inadequate in appellate procedure should stop misleading the public. I think it is high time we address the right opinion. Appropriate legal advice is necessary.”
READ ALSO: IPOB Legal Consultant Thanks Igbos for Backing Nnamdi Kanu Amid Life Sentence
In the motion ex parte (marked FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015) personally signed by Nnamdi Kanu, he sought an order that, due to the impossibility of his physical presence, the motion should be deemed moved in absentia and in terms of the application.
Kanu is primarily seeking an order compelling the 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.” Alternatively, he requested a transfer 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.”
Citing eight grounds, Kanu highlighted that his transfer to the Sokoto facility the 21st of November, 2025, which is over 700 kilometers from Abuja, makes the prosecution of his appeal impracticable.
He argued: “The applicant, who is currently unrepresented by counsel, intends to personally exercise his constitutional right of appeal against the conviction and sentence. The preparation of the notice of appeal and the record of appeal require the applicant’s personal interface with the Registry of this Honourable Court and the Court of Appeal in Abuja.”
He concluded that since all critical persons assisting his appeal, including relatives, associates, and legal consultants, are based in Abuja, his continued detention in Sokoto “renders his constitutional right to appeal impracticable, occasioning exceptional hardship and potentially defeating the said right, in violation of Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).” Kanu believes his transfer to a facility near Abuja is essential for the interest of justice and the effective prosecution of his appeal.