The Abuja Division of the Federal High Court on Monday declined to grant a motion ex parte filed by Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB).
Mr Kanu, who was convicted of terrorism offences, is seeking “an order compelling the complainant (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.”
Alternatively, Mr Kanu 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 (Kanu) to effectively prosecute his constitutionally guaranteed right of appeal.”
Justice James Omotosho held that Mr Kanu’s application, moved by a lawyer from the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria (LACON), Demdoo Asan, cannot be granted through an ex parte motion.
Mr Omotosho held that the respondents, the federal government and NCoS, ought to be put on notice to respond appropriately in the interest of justice before the request could be granted.
Earlier, when the matter was called, Mr Asan announced the appearance for Mr Kanu. Moving the motion, the lawyer said the application sought two prayers.
Justice Omotosho then called the attention of Mr Asan to Relief One, which sought an order “compelling” the federal government and NCoS to transfer the convict to a correctional facility that is close to the jurisdiction of the court.
The judge asked the lawyer if he wanted to go by the relief, especially with respect to the word “compel” used in the motion ex parte, and Mr Asan agreed that Relief One should be struck out.
The judge also asked Mr Asan whether the prosecution and the NCoS, where the convict is currently being kept, ought to be served.
“You are from Legal Aid Council counsel? Do you think it is by ex parte motion that this application ought to be granted, having it in mind that judgment was delivered when the two parties were present?
“Also, among the respondents to obey the order is the correctional service, and you think it is through an ex parte motion that the court can make the order for his transfer?
“Don’t you think this application should have come by motion on notice?” the judge asked.
Responding, Mr Asan admitted that the respondents needed to be put on notice before the matter could be decided judiciously.
“My lord, the respondents have the right to be heard. Usually, the court can make an order that they should be put on notice,” the lawyer said.
“So, do you agree that the respondents should be heard and that this application cannot be taken now?” Justice Omotosho asked further.
“Yes, my lord, they should be heard. We will be applying that the complainant and other parties involved should be put on notice,” Mr Asan applied.
Mr Omotosho, therefore, struck out Relief One in Mr Kanu’s motion and ordered that the prosecution and the NCoS be served for them to respond in the interest of justice.
Mr Asan, however, explained to the court that he was on leave when he was called by his superior officer to come and take up Mr Kanu’s matter.
The judge also faulted Mr Kanu’s notice of appeal, which was filed before the November 20 judgment.
“Counsel, do you have your notice of appeal?” Mr Omotosho asked. Responding, Mr Asan restated that he was only instructed to take up the brief.
The judge then directed the court registrar to show the lawyer the notice of appeal filed by Mr Kanu from the court file upon which the convict based his application.
Justice Omotosho then asked Mr Asan to read out the date the notice of appeal was filed.
“This notice of appeal is dated the 10th of November, my lord; that was before the judgment,” Mr Asan responded.
Justice Omotosho, therefore, said that based on the judgment delivered on November 20, there was no notice of appeal before him.
The lawyer then said they would do the needful.
The judge consequently adjourned the case until January 27, 2026, to enable the applicant to serve the necessary parties and for the application to be taken.
Justice Omotosho had, on December 4, fixed Monday, December 8, for the hearing of the motion ex parte after the court declined to give audience to Mr Kanu’s younger brother, Prince Emmanuel, who announced his appearance for the IPOB leader despite not being a lawyer.
The judge adjourned to enable the applicant to engage a lawyer to represent him in court.
NAN
