360
360

Nnamdi Kanu Petitions Court to Leave Sokoto Prison, Citing Obstacles to Appeal

Task Manager

The Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has filed a new motion before the Federal High Court in Abuja, demanding his transfer from the Sokoto Correctional Facility where he is currently serving a life sentence. Kanu, who was convicted on November 20 on seven counts of terrorism brought against him by the Federal Government, insists that remaining in Sokoto—over 700 kilometres from Abuja—makes it nearly impossible to exercise his constitutional right to appeal.

In a motion ex parte personally signed by him and marked FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, Kanu explained that his imprisonment in Sokoto obstructs essential interactions needed to initiate and prosecute his appeal. Since he is currently without legal representation, he argued that he needs physical access to the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal in Abuja to file and follow up his notice of appeal.

The motion, presented on Thursday by his younger brother, Prince Emmanuel Kanu, stressed that the appeal process requires direct engagement with court registries, consultation with associates who assist in legal strategy, and communication with family members involved in coordinating his defence. According to the filing, all these individuals and institutions are in Abuja, making his Sokoto detention an exceptional hardship.

Kanu stated:

For these reasons, he asked the court to compel the Nigerian Correctional Service (NCoS) to transfer him to a custodial facility within the court’s jurisdiction. As alternatives, he suggested Suleja or Keffi Correctional Centres—both within practical reach of Abuja.

However, when the matter was called, Justice James Omotosho refused to entertain the motion because it was presented by Kanu’s brother, who is not a lawyer. The judge maintained that only a licensed legal practitioner can argue such an application. He advised Kanu to immediately engage counsel or approach the Legal Aid Council for representation.

Justice Omotosho also cautioned against misleading public narratives regarding the appeal process. He addressed comments made by one of Kanu’s former lawyers, Aloy Ejimakor, who had suggested that Kanu’s distance from Abuja prevented him from compiling his appeal record. The judge clarified that a convict’s physical presence is not necessary for record compilation, although legal representation may be required.

He further distinguished between the rights of a defendant and those of a convicted person, emphasising that Kanu’s situation now falls squarely within the latter category, limiting the privileges he can claim.

After declining the brother’s attempt to argue the motion, the judge adjourned further hearing to December 8.

Public Reactions: Harsh Criticism, Mockery, and Divided Opinions
News of Kanu’s request ignited a flood of reactions online, largely critical and often mocking. Many commenters argued that a convict cannot dictate where to serve a prison sentence. Several noted that Kanu, once known for his defiant rhetoric, now appears subdued, with some describing his motion as a sign of early regret.

Some users accused him of previously dismissing legal advice and surrounding himself with supporters who misled him about his invulnerability. Others pointed out that many people he claimed to defend never had the privilege of choosing their conditions of detention.

A minority, however, argued that his request is logical and should be considered, given the legitimate need for proximity to legal resources when filing an appeal. Still, many dismissed this argument, insisting that prison rules do not revolve around inmate convenience.

Overall, the reactions reflect deep divisions on Nnamdi Kanu’s legacy, actions, and consequences. While the court has set December 8 for hearing the motion, the debate over whether he deserves proximity to Abuja—or any special accommodation at all—continues to intensify across social platforms.

Categories: Court
Tags: , , , , , , ,