The Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday deferred hearing on an application filed by the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, seeking his transfer from the Sokoto Correctional Facility.
Justice James Omotosho fixed December 8 for the motion ex parte after declining to recognise the appearance of Kanu’s younger brother, Emmanuel, who attempted to stand in for him despite not being a lawyer.
The court insisted that only a legal practitioner could represent the convict in the matter.
Kanu was, on November 20, 2025, convicted on all seven terrorism charges brought against him by the Federal Government and sentenced to life imprisonment.
He was subsequently transferred to the Sokoto Correctional Facility based on the court’s directive, following security concerns about his continued stay at the Kuje Correctional Centre.
Thursday’s proceedings took a dramatic turn when Emmanuel rose to announce his appearance.
Justice Omotosho immediately queried his standing and declined to entertain the application.
“This ex parte motion cannot be moved on the convict’s behalf because you are not a legal practitioner,” Justice Omotosho stated.
The judge stressed that representation in such matters must come from a lawyer, advising Emmanuel to engage a competent counsel or seek help from the Legal Aid Council.
“When I said representation, it is not his (Kanu’s) father, brother, sister or relations I meant. I mean his counsel.
“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.
“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,” the judge said.
After Emmanuel sought clarification on the adjourned date, the judge assured that the matter would be accommodated despite a busy docket.
“Thank you, sir,” Emmanuel responded.
Justice Omotosho also cautioned against misleading narratives about the compilation of Kanu’s record of appeal, faulting public comments by one of Kanu’s former lawyers, Aloy Ejimakor, on the requirement for the convict’s presence.
“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 sought the views of lawyers present in court, who unanimously affirmed that Kanu’s physical presence was unnecessary for the process.
Advising Emmanuel once more, the judge cautioned that uninformed legal commentary could mislead the public.
“I think it is high time we address the right opinion. Appropriate legal advice is necessary,” he said.
The judge thereafter adjourned the matter to December 8 for hearing.
In the motion ex parte, personally signed by Kanu, he asked the court to deem the application moved in his absence, citing the impossibility of physically appearing in court.
He also sought an order compelling the Federal Government or the Nigerian Correctional Service to transfer him from Sokoto to a facility within Abuja’s jurisdiction.
Alternatively, he prayed to be moved to a custodial centre in proximity to the court—such as Suleja or Keffi—to enable him to exercise his constitutional right of appeal.
In the motion marked FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, Kanu argued that his current detention over 700 kilometres from Abuja had made it impracticable to prepare his appeal, especially as he presently has no legal representation.
He stated that key persons needed for the process—including relatives, associates and legal consultants—are all based in Abuja, adding that continued detention in Sokoto poses exceptional hardship and threatens his right to appeal under Section 36 of the Constitution.
Kanu urged the court to order his relocation to a facility near Abuja in the interest of justice and to ensure he can effectively pursue his appeal.
