The Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday fixed December 8 for the hearing of a motion filed by the detained leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, who is asking the court to order his transfer from the Sokoto Correctional Facility to a custodial center closer to Abuja.
The court fixed the date after refusing to allow Kanu’s younger brother, Emmanuel Kanu, to represent him in court. Emmanuel is not a lawyer, and the presiding judge, Justice James Omotosho, made it clear that only a qualified legal practitioner can appear for the convicted IPOB leader.
Kanu was found guilty on November 20, 2025, on all seven terrorism-related charges brought against him by the Federal Government. The charges included running a proscribed organisation, inciting violence, and broadcasting messages the government said threatened Nigeria’s unity. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, ending a lengthy trial that had lasted several years and had attracted national and international attention.
After the judgment, the court directed that Kanu should not be returned to the Kuje Correctional Facility in Abuja, where he had been held during much of the trial. The judge expressed concern about security at Kuje, where a major prison break occurred in 2022. Kanu was therefore moved to the Sokoto Correctional Facility, more than 700 kilometres from Abuja.
Before the final judgment, Kanu dismissed his legal team and chose to represent himself. His decision has created challenges for the continuation of his case, especially now that he plans to appeal his conviction.
During Thursday’s proceedings, Justice Omotosho firmly rejected Emmanuel’s attempt to speak on Kanu’s behalf. When the case was called, the judge requested the appearance of a counsel. Emmanuel stood up instead, announcing that he would represent his brother.
“This ex parte motion cannot be moved on the convict’s behalf because you are not a legal practitioner,” Justice Omotosho said.
He explained that the law does not allow a private citizen—even a close relative—to represent another person in court unless that person is a qualified lawyer registered to practise in Nigeria.
“You cannot represent a human being when you are not a lawyer; you can only represent a corporate body,” he added. The judge further explained that it would take Emmanuel “about six years” to become a lawyer if he wished to do so, and advised him to either hire one or seek help from the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria.
When Emmanuel asked for the next hearing date, the judge replied that although the court had a busy schedule, Kanu’s matter would be accommodated on December 8.
Justice Omotosho also addressed comments made outside the court by Aloy Ejimakor, one of Kanu’s former lawyers who later served as a consultant. Ejimakor had claimed that Kanu was being denied the opportunity to gather materials needed to prepare his appeal because he could not be present in court.
“The defendant may not be in court to compile a record. His attendance is not required,” the judge explained. He also noted that the rights of a person awaiting trial are different from the rights of someone who has already been convicted.
To make the matter clear, the judge asked other lawyers present whether a convict needed to be physically in court for records to be compiled. They all answered no.
He advised Emmanuel once again to get a lawyer who understands the appeals process. “Appropriate legal advice is necessary,” he said.
The court will on December 8 hear Kanu’s motion seeking his transfer out of Sokoto. In the ex parte application, personally signed by him, Kanu argued that being kept so far from Abuja makes it almost impossible for him to prepare his appeal.
He asked the court to “deem the motion as moved” since he cannot be physically present to argue it.
Kanu is requesting an order compelling the Federal Government or the Nigerian Correctional Service to transfer him to a facility within Abuja’s jurisdiction. As an alternative, he proposed the Suleja or Keffi custodial centres, both located within proximity to the Federal Capital Territory.
In the motion, marked FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, Kanu listed eight reasons why he should be moved. Among them:
He is currently unrepresented by counsel and intends to personally file his appeal.
Preparing an appeal requires close contact with the court registry and other legal institutions in Abuja.
Remaining in Sokoto makes the appeal process “impracticable” and causes “exceptional hardship.”
Kanu argued that his continued detention in Sokoto may weaken or even defeat his constitutional right to appeal under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution.
He insisted that transferring him closer to Abuja would serve the interests of justice and allow him to effectively pursue the appeal.
Nnamdi Kanu has been at the centre of one of Nigeria’s most controversial legal and political battles in recent years. As the leader of IPOB, a group seeking an independent state of Biafra, Kanu gained a large following in the South-East. The Federal Government, however, classified IPOB as a terrorist organisation in 2017.
Kanu was first arrested in 2015 and released on bail in 2017. He later fled the country but was arrested again in 2021 in an operation the Federal Government described as an “interception.” His supporters claimed he was abducted.
Since then, Kanu’s trial has triggered debates about security, human rights, rule of law, and the growing unrest in parts of the South-East.
His conviction and life sentence in November 2025 marked a major turning point in a case that has drawn both criticism and support from different groups across Nigeria.
With the case now adjourned until December 8, all eyes will again turn to the Federal High Court to see whether it will order Kanu’s transfer from Sokoto to a facility closer to Abuja.