By Nchetachi Chukwuajah
The Federal High Court in Abuja has declined to grant the ex parte motion filed by the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, seeking to be transferred from the Sokoto Correctional Centre to another custodial facility closer to the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).
Justice James Omotosho refused the request during hearing on the motion on Monday, December 8, noting that among others, the motion was filed on November 10, days before he was sentenced to life imprisonment after being convicted of terrorism-related offences.
Justice Omotosho stated that Kanu’s application, moved by a Legal Aid Council of Nigeria lawyer, Demdoo Asan, could not be granted by way of an ex parte motion.
Recall that following Kanu’s sentencing, he was then taken to the Sokoto Correctional Centre to serve his sentence following the court’s ruling that he should serve his sentence in any correctional facility other than the Kuje Custodial Centre in Abuja.
Kanu, however, filed a motion before the court requesting that he be transferred from the Sokoto facility to any other custodial centre closer to Abuja, suggesting Suleja (Niger State) or Keffi custodial centres in Nasarawa State.
The IPOB leader, in the motion, sought “an order compelling the complainant (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 court.
“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 (Kanu) to effectively prosecute his constitutionally guaranteed right of appeal.”
When the case was called up on December 4, Justice Omotosho declined to give audience to Kanu’s younger brother, Prince Emmanuel, who had announced an appearance for the IPOB leader despite not being a legal practitioner.
Justice Omotosho subsequently fixed Monday for the hearing of the ex parte motion.
In his ruling on Monday, Justice Omotosho held that the respondents, the Federal Government and the Nigerian Correctional Service, ought to be put on notice to enable them to respond appropriately in the interest of justice before any order could be made.
When the matter was called, the Legal Aid Council lawyer announced his appearance for Kanu and moved the motion, explaining that it contained two prayers.
Justice Omotosho drew his attention to Relief One, which sought an order “compelling” the Federal Government and the NCoS to transfer the convict to a custodial facility within the court’s jurisdiction.
The judge asked the lawyer whether he intended to proceed with that relief, particularly in view of the word “compel” used in an ex parte application. Asan agreed that Relief One should be struck out.
The court also asked whether the prosecution and the NCoS ought to be served with the application.
“You are from the Legal Aid Council. Do you think it is by ex parte motion that this application ought to be granted, bearing in mind that judgment was delivered when both parties were present?
“Also, among the respondents to obey the order is the correctional service. Do you think it is through an 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?” the judge asked.
In response, Asan admitted that the respondents needed to be put on notice before the matter could be determined.
Justice Omotosho consequently struck out Relief One and ordered that the prosecution and the NCoS be served to enable them to respond.
The court also faulted the notice of appeal filed by Kanu, which was submitted before the delivery of the judgment, to which Asan responded that he had only been instructed to take up the brief.
The judge then directed the court registrar to show the lawyer the notice of appeal in the court file and asked him to read the date.
Asan responded that the notice of appeal is dated November 10, which was before the judgment.
Justice Omotosho held that based on the judgment delivered on November 20, there was no valid notice of appeal before the court, to which Asan said they would “do the needful.”
The matter was adjourned till January 27, 2026, to enable the applicant to serve the necessary parties and for the application to be heard.
