A Federal High Court in Abuja has declined an ex parte application asking for the transfer of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra, from the Sokoto correctional facility.
Gatekeepers News reports that Kanu has been held in the facility since his conviction on November 20 on a seven-count terrorism charge by the same court.
In the ex parte motion, Kanu asked the court to order the Federal Government and the Nigerian Correctional Service to move him immediately to a custodial centre within the court’s jurisdiction.
He also suggested that he could be transferred to a nearby facility such as Suleja or Keffi to allow him to effectively pursue his right of appeal.
Demdoo Asan, a lawyer from the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria, presented the motion on Monday. However, Justice James Omotosho ruled that the request could not be considered through an ex parte application.
The judge said the use of the word “compel” meant that the Federal Government and the correctional service must be notified and allowed to respond.
He asked, “You are from Legal Aid Council counsel? Do you think it is by ex parte motion this application ought to be granted, having it in mind that judgment was delivered when the two parties were present?”
“Also, among the respondents to obey the order is the correctional service, and you think it is through ex parte motion that the court can make the order for his transfer? Don’t you think this application should have come by motion on notice?”
Asan agreed that the respondents needed to be heard for the matter to be handled fairly. He said, “My lord, the respondents have the right to be heard. Usually, the court can make an order that they should be put on notice.”
Justice Omotosho then struck out the first relief in Kanu’s application and directed that the prosecution and the correctional service should be served so they can respond.
He also faulted the notice of appeal Kanu filed on November 10, saying it was submitted before his court delivered its November 20 judgment. According to him, there is currently no valid notice of appeal before the court.
The case was adjourned to January 27, 2026, for the respondents to be served and for the motion to be properly heard.
