In a significant development in the ongoing legal saga of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Nnamdi Kanu, Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed an urgent ex-parte application seeking Kanu’s immediate transfer from the Sokoto Correctional Centre to a facility closer to the capital. The ruling, delivered on Monday, underscores procedural fairness by requiring input from the respondents before any relocation order can be considered.
Background of the Application
Kanu, who was convicted on November 20, 2025, on all seven counts of terrorism-related charges preferred by the Federal Government, was sentenced to life imprisonment. Following the verdict, authorities relocated him to the Sokoto facility—over 700 kilometers from Abuja—citing heightened security risks at the Kuje Custodial Centre, which has a history of high-profile prison breaks, including the 2022 jailbreak.
Through his legal team, represented by the Legal Aid Council and consultant Aloy Ejimakor, Kanu filed the motion marked FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015. The application, personally signed by Kanu, sought an order directing the Federal Government or the Nigerian Correctional Service (NCoS) to transfer him to:
- Kuje Custodial Centre in Abuja, or
- Keffi Custodial Centre in Nasarawa State, or
- Any facility within the court’s jurisdiction, such as Suleja or Keffi.
Kanu argued that the distant location severely hampers his ability to prepare and file his notice of appeal and record of appeal, as it isolates him from essential support networks. He highlighted eight grounds, including the impracticality of coordinating with relatives, associates, and legal consultants—all based in Abuja—amid the logistical and financial burdens of travel to Sokoto.The motion was presented as an ex-parte request (without prior notice to the opposing side) and sought to be “deemed moved in absentia” to expedite relief.
Court’s Ruling and RationaleJustice Omotosho, in a concise but firm decision, rejected the plea for immediate transfer, emphasizing the principles of natural justice. He ruled that granting such an order without hearing from the respondents—the Federal Government and NCoS—would be premature and potentially unjust.”
The respondents ought to be put on notice to respond appropriately in the interest of justice,” the judge held, adding that ex-parte applications of this nature cannot bypass due process, especially in matters involving national security and custodial arrangements.
The court has now adjourned the substantive hearing of the motion to January 27, 2026, allowing time for the respondents to file their counter-affidavits and for all parties to present arguments.
Broader Implications
This rejection prolongs Kanu’s isolation in Sokoto, raising fresh concerns among his supporters and human rights advocates about access to legal representation and fair trial rights under international standards, such as those outlined in the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. IPOB, through its spokespersons, has decried the move as “punitive relocation” aimed at stifling Kanu’s appellate process, potentially delaying his challenge to the terrorism conviction.
For the Federal Government, the ruling aligns with its security-driven rationale for the transfer, reinforcing efforts to mitigate risks associated with Kanu’s high-profile status and the separatist agitation in southeastern Nigeria. Legal experts anticipate a robust defense from the Attorney General’s office, possibly citing intelligence reports on threats at Abuja-area facilities.
As Kanu’s team scrambles to navigate the adjournment, this case continues to spotlight tensions between security imperatives and judicial access in Nigeria’s federal justice system. The January 2026 date will be pivotal, with outcomes likely to influence not just Kanu’s appeal but broader discussions on prison reforms and detainee rights. Stakeholders, including Amnesty International and local bar associations, are monitoring closely for any signs of procedural lapses.
