Federal High Court declines Nnamdi Kanu’s request for correctional facility transfer
Justice Omotosho rules application cannot be granted via ex-parte motion without notice
The Federal High Court in Abuja has declined to grant a key motion filed by Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB).
Kanu, who was convicted of terrorism offenses, had sought an order to compel his transfer from the Sokoto Correctional Facility to a custodial centre closer to the court’s jurisdiction. The ruling was delivered by Justice James Omotosho on Monday.
Justice Omotosho ruled that Kanu’s application, which was moved by a lawyer from the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria (LACON), could not be granted through an ex-parte motion. The judge emphasized that the application was legally flawed because the respondents—the Federal Government and the Nigerian Correctional Service (NCoS)—have a constitutional right to be heard. The court determined that they must be formally put on notice to respond appropriately in the interest of justice.
Kanu sought transfer closer to court for appeal prosecution
Kanu’s primary request in the motion was for “an order compelling the complainant (Federal Government) and/or the Nigerian Correctional Service (NCoS) to forthwith transfer him from the Sokoto Correctional Facility.” The application specified a desire for transfer to a custodial facility within the jurisdiction of the court. This would include centres in the court’s immediate environs, such as the Suleja or the Keffi Custodial Centre.
The motion clearly stated that the purpose of the desired transfer was to enable Kanu to “effectively prosecute his constitutionally guaranteed right of appeal.” Being housed closer to the Federal High Court in Abuja would theoretically make it easier for his legal team to access him for consultation and case preparation. However, the use of the word “compel” in the initial relief was quickly flagged by the court as problematic.
Legal counsel concedes procedural error in application filing
During the proceedings, Justice Omotosho drew the attention of the LACON lawyer, Demdoo Asan, to the wording of the relief, specifically the term ‘compel’ within an ex-parte motion context. Asan agreed that the first relief, which sought to compel the government and NCoS, should be struck out due to its nature. The judge further pressed the lawyer on the necessity of serving the prosecution and the Correctional Service.
Justice Omotosho pointed out that since the previous judgment was delivered in the presence of both parties, granting a transfer order without hearing the respondents would violate the principle of fair hearing. The judge candidly stated, “A law school student will know that this application cannot be granted ex parte.” Asan admitted the procedural error, agreeing that the respondents had the right to be heard and that the application should have been filed by motion on notice.
Notice of appeal also found to be prematurely filed
Beyond the procedural issues of the transfer motion, the judge also found a fault with Kanu’s notice of appeal itself. Justice Omotosho directed the court registrar to show the lawyer the notice of appeal filed by the convict, which formed the basis of the transfer request. Upon reading the date, Asan confirmed the notice of appeal was dated the 10th of November.
The judge noted that the notice of appeal was filed before the judgment in the case was delivered on November 20. Justice Omotosho consequently ruled that based on the delivery date of the judgment, there was technically no valid notice of appeal before the court at the time of filing the motion. The lawyer assured the court that the legal team would promptly “do the needful” to correct the defect.
Case adjourned until January 2026 for proper service
Following the procedural errors and legal defects identified, Justice Omotosho formally struck out the problematic first relief in Kanu’s motion. He ordered that the prosecution and the Nigerian Correctional Service be properly served with the application for them to file their formal responses in the interest of justice. This action ensures that the matter will be determined on its merit after all parties have been duly heard.
The judge subsequently adjourned the case until January 27, 2026. This timeframe is intended to enable the applicant to effectively serve the necessary parties and allow the application to be taken up properly via a motion on notice. The ruling underscores the court’s commitment to following due process, even in high-profile cases involving convicted figures.
