A Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed an application by Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), seeking his transfer from the Sokoto Correctional Facility.
Kanu has been held at the Sokoto prison since his conviction on November 20, 2025, when the Abuja division of the Federal High Court found him guilty on seven terrorism-related counts.
In an ex parte application, Kanu asked the court to order the federal government and the Nigerian Correctional Service (NCoS) to transfer him to a custodial facility within the court’s jurisdiction.
Read also: Court remands Kano electoral commission chairman, two others over alleged N1bn fraud
In the alternative, he requested relocation to nearby facilities such as Suleja or Keffi to enable him pursue his right of appeal.
The court had earlier declined to hear the application as an ex parte matter and directed that the federal government and the NCoS be served with a motion on notice to allow them respond.
At Tuesday’s hearing, Demdoo Asan, a legal officer with the Legal Aid Council and counsel to Kanu, informed the court of his decision to withdraw from the case, citing irreconcilable differences.
Asan said he had been in contact with Kanu’s relatives since the last adjournment but that they failed to appear at the Legal Aid Council’s office to depose to the application despite repeated assurances.
He also told the court that Kanu sought to dictate the conduct of the case, including attempting to control what counsel would say in court, which he said was inconsistent with his duty as an officer of the court.
Asan added that after consulting with his superiors, they agreed that continuing with the representation was not feasible. He subsequently applied to withdraw as counsel.
The presiding judge, James Omotosho, granted the application and allowed the Legal Aid Council to withdraw from representing Kanu.
Read also: Court orders FCT workers to suspend strike, unions double down
In his ruling, Omotosho held that the motion was incompetent, noting that although the court had ordered service on the respondents, no proof of service had been presented between the last sitting on December 8, 2025, and January 27.
The court accordingly struck out the ex parte motion.
