Kanu: Court Orders Lawyer To Serve Processes On Govt, Others

Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, has advised convicted Biafra agitator Nnamdi Kanu to serve the court processes seeking an order from the court to transfer him from Sokoto Prison to another facility closer to the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja.

Justice Omotosho said the request by Demdoo Asan, a lawyer from the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria (LACoN), could not be granted by way of an ex parte motion.

Kanu was convicted of terrorism-related offences on November 20, 2025, and subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment, a verdict his family has rejected and vowed to appeal.

Following his sentencing, Kanu was taken to the Sokoto Correctional Centre to serve his sentence, as the court had determined that the Kuje Custodial Centre in Abuja was not suitable for him.

On December 4, 2025, Justice Omotosho fixed yesterday for the hearing of the ex parte motion after declining to give audience to Kanu’s younger brother, Prince Emmanuel, who had announced an appearance for the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader despite not being a legal practitioner.

The judge had told him that he could not represent his brother, directing that a lawyer be engaged or that LACoN provide one.

In his ruling yesterday, 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, Asan 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 the ex parte application. Asan agreed that relief one should be struck out.

The court also inquired whether the prosecution and the NCoS should be served with the application 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 who obey the order is the correctional service. Do you think the court can make the order for his transfer through an ex parte motion?

“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.