5th December, 2025.
Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja has scheduled December 8 for the hearing of an application filed by Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the banned Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), requesting relocation from the Sokoto Correctional Facility.
The judge on Thursday turned down an attempt by Kanu’s younger brother, Prince Emmanuel Kanu, to represent the convicted separatist leader, insisting that only a qualified legal practitioner can move such an application before the court.
Kanu was convicted on November 20, 2025, on seven terrorism-related charges and sentenced to life imprisonment. Following the judgment, he was transferred to the Sokoto Correctional Centre after Justice Omotosho expressed security concerns about keeping him at the Kuje facility due to previous prison breaches.
When the case was called on Thursday, Prince Emmanuel, who is not a lawyer, announced his appearance for his brother. Justice Omotosho immediately rejected this, stating that only a licensed attorney can appear on behalf of a convict.
“This ex parte motion cannot be moved on the convict’s behalf because you are not a legal practitioner,” the judge declared. He emphasized that while a non-lawyer can represent a corporate body, human beings can only be represented by qualified solicitors or advocates of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.
The judge advised Emmanuel to either engage a lawyer or approach the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria for legal representation, noting that it would take approximately six years for him to qualify as a lawyer if he chose to pursue that path.
In the motion personally signed by Kanu and marked FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, the IPOB leader argued that his detention over 700 kilometers away from Abuja makes it nearly impossible to prepare his appeal. He requested that the court compel the Federal Government or the Nigerian Correctional Service to relocate him to a facility within the court’s jurisdiction, preferably Suleja or Keffi Custodial Centre.
Kanu, who dismissed his legal team before the judgment and opted for self-representation, stated that all persons critical to assisting him with his appeal, including relatives, associates, and legal consultants, are based in Abuja. He argued that his continued detention in Sokoto violates Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which guarantees the right to appeal.
Justice Omotosho also used the opportunity to address what he described as misleading information circulating in the public about appeal procedures. He specifically countered remarks attributed to Aloy Ejimakor, one of Kanu’s former lawyers now serving as a consultant, who had suggested that Kanu must be physically present in court to compile his appeal record.
“Mr Ejimakor granted an interview, talking about the deprivation of the defendant to compile his record. That is an erroneous opinion,” Justice Omotosho stated. He clarified that a convict’s attendance is not required for compiling appeal records, though legal representation may be necessary.
The judge posed the question to lawyers present in court whether Kanu’s physical presence was mandatory for record compilation, and they unanimously answered in the negative. He cautioned that lawyers who lack adequate knowledge of appellate procedures should stop misleading the public.
When Emmanuel inquired about the next court date, Justice Omotosho confirmed that although cases were already scheduled for Monday, Kanu’s matter would be accommodated on December 8.