|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday refused to grant an ex-parte motion filed by Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB).
The court held that the Federal Government and the Nigerian Correctional Service (NCoS) must be notified and allowed to respond before any decision is made.
Kanu, convicted on terrorism charges, is seeking “an order compelling the complainant (the Federal Government) and/or the Nigerian Correctional Service (NCoS) to transfer him from the Sokoto Correctional Facility to a custodial centre within the jurisdiction of this court.”
Alternatively, he asked to be moved to a facility near the court such as the Suleja or Keffi Custodial Centre to enable him to pursue his right of appeal.
Read also: Terrorism: Kanu sentenced to life imprisonment a decade after arrest
Justice James Omotosho ruled that Kanu’s request, presented by Demdoo Asan of the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria (LACON), could not be determined through an ex-parte application.
When the case was called, Asan appeared for Kanu and moved the motion, which contained two prayers.
Justice Omotosho noted that the first relief sought an order “compelling” the Federal Government and the NCoS to transfer Kanu.
He questioned whether such a request could be made ex-parte, since it required action from the respondents. Asan agreed that the first relief should be struck out.
The judge then asked whether the prosecution and the NCoS where Kanu is held should be served with the application.
“You are from the Legal Aid Council. Do you think this application should be granted ex-parte, considering that the judgment was delivered when both parties were present? One of the respondents is the correctional service.
“Can an order directing them to transfer the convict be made without hearing them? Shouldn’t this application come by motion on notice?” the judge asked.
Asan agreed that the respondents needed to be heard.
“My lord, the respondents have the right to be heard. The court can direct that they be put on notice,” he said.
“So, you agree the respondents must be heard and that the application cannot be taken now?” the judge asked.
“Yes, my lord,” Asan replied. “We will apply that the complainant and other parties be put on notice.”
Justice Omotosho struck out the first relief and ordered that the prosecution and NCoS be served so they can respond.
“A law school student will know that this application cannot be granted ex-parte,” the judge said.
Asan explained that he was on leave when he was instructed to appear.
The judge also questioned the notice of appeal filed by Kanu, noting it was submitted before the November 20 judgment.
“Counsel, do you have your notice of appeal?” he asked.
Asan said he was only briefed to appear. The judge directed the registrar to show him the notice of appeal in the court file.
After reading it, the judge asked:
“This notice of appeal is dated what?”
“It is dated 10 November, my lord—before the judgment,” Asan replied.
Justice Omotosho held that, based on the November 20 judgment, no valid notice of appeal was before the court. Asan said they would take the necessary steps to correct this.
The case was adjourned to January 27, 2026, to allow the applicant to serve the parties and for the motion to be heard.
Justice Omotosho had earlier fixed December 4 for hearing the ex-parte motion after declining to hear Kanu’s brother, Prince Emmanuel, who attempted to appear for him despite not being a lawyer.
The matter was adjourned to enable Kanu to engage a lawyer.
