A move for the relocation of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), out of the Sokoto Custodial Centre, met a brickwall on Thursday, as Justice James Omotosho, who handed him a life sentence on November 20, once again disappointed the Biafran agitator.
Omotosho, pointedly said no to the request being made by someone who is not a lawyer, when Emmanuel Kanu, younger brother to the convicted IPOB leader brought the fresh motion his Federal High Court in Abuja, adducing reasons why he should be transfer, even though it was personally signed, by the IPOB leader.
Kanu, had told the court that his detention in Sokoto Custodial Center would hamper his ability to effectively appeal against his conviction and sentence, adding that in view of the impossibility of his appearance before the court or chambers to personally move the motion, Omotosho, should proceed and hear it in his absence.
In the eight grounds he raised in support of the motion ex parte marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, Kanu stressed that he was on November 20, sentenced by the court after it found him guilty of the seven-count terrorism charge the federal government preferred against him.
Hear him: “On the 21st of November 2025, the applicant was transferred to, and is currently detained at the Sokoto Correctional Facility, which is over 700 kilometres from Abuja. The applicant, who is currently unrepresented by counsel, intends to personally exercise his constitutional right of appeal against the conviction and sentence.
“The preparation of the notice of appeal and the record of appeal requires the Applicant’s personal interface with the Registry of this Honourable Court and the Court of Appeal in Abuja. All persons critical to assisting the applicant in preparing his appeal, including his relatives, associates, and legal consultants, are based in Abuja.
“The applicant’s continued detention in Sokoto renders his constitutional right to appeal impracticable, occasioning exceptional hardship and potentially defeating the said right, in violation of Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended),” he added.
Stressing that it would be in the interest of justice for him to be transferred to a facility near Abuja to enable him to effectively prosecute his appeal, he prayed the court for an order to compel the federal government and/or the Nigerian Correctional Service (NCoS) to forthwith, transfer him from the Sokoto Correctional Facility to a custodial facility within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.
In the alternative, he sought an order transferring him to the court’s “immediate environs, such as the Suleja or the Keffi Custodial Centre, for the purpose of enabling the applicant to effectively prosecute his constitutionally guaranteed right of appeal.”
Omotosho, while declining to go into the matter proper, told the younger Kanu: “This ex parte motion cannot be moved on the convict’s behalf because you are not a legal practitioner. You either engage a legal practitioner or approach the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria for legal representation since the law allows it.
“When I said representation, it is not his (Kanu’s) father, brother, sister or relations I meant. I mean his counsel. I am not going to the merit of this application now in the interest of justice.
“But you cannot represent a human being when you are not a lawyer; you can only represent a corporate body.
“Therefore, you cannot move the application because you are not a solicitor or advocate of the Supreme Court of Nigeria. For you to be qualified as a lawyer, it will take you another six years or thereabout. So get a counsel to move the application.”
Regarding the difficulty in the filings, Omotosho also took out time before he adjourned the motion till December 8, to respond to Aloy Ejimakor, Kanu’s former lawyer, now his consultant, who insinuated that IPOB leader could not compile his record of appearance owing to where he is currently kept.
His words: “Let me advise generally so that you don’t delay the process. The issue of appeal, I must not pretend that I am not part of society. Mr Ejimakor granted an interview, talking about the deprivation of the defendant (Kanu) to compile his record. That is an erroneous opinion.
“The defendant may not be in court to compile a record. His attendance is not required, though the appearance of his representative may be required. The rights of a defendant are different from the rights of a convict.”