The Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed an ex parte motion filed for Nnamdi Kanu, insisting the Federal Government and NCoS must first be notified.
The Federal High Court in Abuja has declined to grant an ex parte application seeking the urgent transfer of the detained leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, ruling that the nature of the request requires notifying the opposing parties before any decision can be made.
The ruling was delivered on Monday by Justice James Omotosho, who stressed that the Federal Government and the Nigerian Correctional Service (NCoS) must be given the opportunity to present their positions in court.
The application was brought on behalf of Kanu by Demdoo Asan, a lawyer from the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria (LACON).
In the motion, Kanu requested an order compelling the Federal Government or the NCoS to immediately move him from the Sokoto Correctional Facility to a location within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court in Abuja.
He argued that the transfer was necessary to ensure he could pursue his constitutional right of appeal effectively and without obstruction.
Alternatively, the motion asked the court to order that Kanu be moved to another correctional facility within the Abuja vicinity, such as the Suleja Custodial Centre in Niger State or the Keffi Custodial Centre in Nasarawa State.
These facilities, the motion argued, would allow easier access to legal counsel and better coordination in his appeal process.
However, Justice Omotosho questioned the appropriateness of bringing such a significant request through an ex parte motion, which is usually reserved for matters requiring urgent intervention where notifying the other party could cause irreparable harm.
The judge noted that since Kanu is already in lawful custody following his conviction for terrorism-related offences, and because the relief sought would impose obligations on the Federal Government and the NCoS, both respondents deserved to be served and heard before any ruling could be made.
The judge also scrutinised the wording of the first relief, which sought an order “compelling” the respondents to carry out the transfer.
He drew the lawyer’s attention to the fact that such a directive—especially one that mandates action by federal authorities—cannot be granted behind their backs.
Upon being confronted with this observation, Asan conceded and agreed that the first relief should be struck out.
Justice Omotosho proceeded to question the overall filing method, asking Asan whether he believed an ex parte application was the proper legal route, particularly because the judgment convicting Nnamdi Kanu was delivered in the presence of both the prosecution and the defence.
According to him, the law leans heavily toward fairness, and fairness requires that all parties involved in the matter be duly notified.
In his response, Asan admitted that the respondents had the right to be heard.
He acknowledged that the application, to meet the requirements of justice, needed to be served on the Federal Government and the Nigerian Correctional Service.
He subsequently applied orally for an order directing that the respondents be put on notice, paving the way for the court to entertain the motion at a later date.
The presiding judge sharply criticised the manner in which the motion was brought, remarking that “a law school student will know that this application cannot be granted ex parte.”
The courtroom moment highlighted concerns over procedural diligence and underscored the seriousness of the application being made.
In addition to declining the ex parte request, Justice Omotosho raised concerns regarding the notice of appeal upon which the application was predicated.
He asked the court registrar to produce the notice of appeal from the case file and instructed Asan to read out the date it was filed.
When Asan read out the date—November 10—the judge noted that the appeal was filed before his judgment was delivered on November 20.
Because of this, he held that there was effectively no valid notice of appeal before the court that could justify the urgent request for transfer.
Asan responded politely, saying that corrective steps would be taken promptly.
The judge then adjourned the matter to January 27, 2026, allowing the applicant time to properly serve the Federal Government and the NCoS and to regularise all necessary court filings.
He stated clearly that the court would only entertain the application after ensuring that both respondents had been given the opportunity to respond.
This latest development follows an attempt earlier in December to move the same application.
On December 4, the court refused to recognise Kanu’s younger brother, Prince Emmanuel, who attempted to represent him despite not being a lawyer.
Justice Omotosho adjourned that earlier sitting to allow time for proper legal representation to be secured, leading to Asan’s appearance in Monday’s proceedings.
The case marks another chapter in the long-running legal battle involving Nnamdi Kanu, whose detention has triggered national and international debates on security, constitutional rights, and the limits of freedom of expression.
However, Monday’s proceedings focused strictly on procedural compliance, with the court insisting that due process must be followed before any transfer request can be considered.
About The Author
