The Federal High Court in Abuja, the capital city of Nigeria, on Monday declined an ex parte request filed by the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra movement, Mr. Nnamdi Kanu, who sought an order directing authorities to relocate him from the Sokoto Correctional Centre in the northern part of Nigeria to a custodial facility closer to Abuja.
Okay News reports that the ruling was delivered by Justice James Omotosho, who held that the application, which was moved by a representative of the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria, Mr. Demdoo Asan, could not be entertained through an ex parte motion since the Federal Government of Nigeria and the Nigerian Correctional Service were not given the opportunity to respond.
Justice Omotosho explained that granting such a request without hearing from the respondents would be inconsistent with established judicial principles. He stressed that the first relief, which sought an order “compelling” the Federal Government and the Nigerian Correctional Service to immediately transfer the applicant, was not appropriate for an ex parte procedure. Following this clarification, the court struck out the relief.
Mr. Kanu, who was convicted of terrorism-related charges on November 20, 2025, and sentenced to life imprisonment after proceedings attended by both the defence and the prosecution teams, was moved to the Sokoto Correctional Centre after the court determined that the Kuje Custodial Centre in Abuja was not suitable for his confinement.
Seeking an alternative location, Mr. Kanu requested relocation to either the Suleja Custodial Centre in Niger State or the Keffi Custodial Centre in Nasarawa State, both of which are significantly closer to Abuja. He argued that proximity to the Federal Capital Territory was essential in order to effectively prepare and pursue his appeal.
The court, however, insisted that the prosecution and the Nigerian Correctional Service must first be served with the application. Justice Omotosho stated, “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? Do you think it is through an ex parte motion that the court can make the order for his transfer?”
In response, Mr. Asan acknowledged that the respondents indeed had the right to be heard. He said, “My Lord, the respondents have the right to be heard. Usually, the court can make an order that they should be put on notice.”
Justice Omotosho further drew attention to the notice of appeal filed on behalf of Mr. Kanu, which had been submitted before the court delivered its judgment. The judge directed the court registrar to verify the date. When the document was reviewed, Mr. Asan confirmed, “This notice of appeal is dated November 10, my Lord, that was before the judgment.”
The judge subsequently noted that because the notice of appeal was irregularly filed before the judgment date, there was no valid appeal presently before the court. Mr. Asan assured the judge that corrective steps would be taken, saying they would “do the needful.”
The matter has been adjourned until January 27, 2026, to enable all parties to be properly served with the application and to allow for a full hearing.
