The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed 8 December for the hearing of an ex parte motion filed by Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), who is seeking to be moved out of the Sokoto Correctional Facility, where he is currently serving a life sentence.
Kanu was convicted on 20 November 2025 on all seven terrorism charges brought against him by the Federal Government and immediately sentenced to life imprisonment. In an unusual step, the court ordered that he be held anywhere in the country except the Kuje Correctional Facility, citing concerns for his safety following previous prison breaks there. He was subsequently transferred to Sokoto, more than 700 km from Abuja.
Before the verdict was delivered, Kanu dismissed his legal team and opted to represent himself. That decision complicated proceedings on Thursday, when his younger brother, Emmanuel Kanu, attempted to announce an appearance on his behalf despite not being a lawyer.
Justice James Omotosho swiftly declined to recognise him.
“This ex parte motion cannot be moved on the convict’s behalf because you are not a legal practitioner,” the judge said, adding that only a qualified lawyer could act for the IPOB leader. He advised Emmanuel to engage counsel or seek help from the Legal Aid Council.
“You cannot represent a human being when you are not a lawyer; you can only represent a corporate body,” he added.
The judge later reiterated that Kanu’s physical presence was not required for the compilation of his record of appeal, countering a public claim by one of Kanu’s former lawyers, Aloy Ejimakor, who now works as a consultant.
“That is an erroneous opinion,” Justice Omotosho said. “The rights of a defendant are different from the rights of a convict.”
Lawyers present in court agreed that an appellant does not need to be physically present for the record to be prepared. Warning against “misleading the public”, the judge said that only a lawyer knowledgeable in appellate procedure should handle such matters.
Having refused to hear Emmanuel, the court adjourned the matter to 8 December.
In the motion personally signed by Kanu, he argued that his continued detention in Sokoto makes it “impracticable” to exercise his constitutional right of appeal. He asked the court to deem the application moved in absentia, noting that he cannot be present in court to argue it.
Kanu is seeking an order compelling the Federal Government or the Nigerian Correctional Service to transfer him to a custodial facility within the court’s jurisdiction. As alternatives, he proposed detention in Suleja or Keffi—both close to Abuja—to allow him to interface with court registries, relatives, legal consultants, and others involved in preparing his appeal.
He argued that all those critical to assisting him are in Abuja and that being held hundreds of kilometres away imposes “exceptional hardship” and risks defeating his appeal rights under Section 36 of the Constitution.
“It would be in the interest of justice,” the motion states, “for the applicant to be transferred to a facility near Abuja to effectively prosecute his appeal.”
