Court Bars Emmanuel Kanu From Representing Detained IPOB Leader, Adjourns Motion on Sokoto Transfer to December 8

 

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday stopped Emmanuel Kanu from attempting to stand in for his elder brother, Nnamdi Kanu, during proceedings concerning a motion he personally filed from custody.

Justice James Omotosho, who presided over the session, ruled firmly that only a licensed legal practitioner can represent a defendant or a convict in criminal proceedings. Emmanuel, who rose in court to announce his representation, was immediately halted. The judge stressed that the law is explicit on legal representation and does not permit a relative, regardless of closeness, to appear in court on behalf of an accused or convicted person.

Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra, has remained in custody at the Sokoto Correctional Facility since his conviction on November 20, 2025. He was handed a life sentence after being found guilty on seven terrorism related charges. Following the conviction, the authorities transferred him out of the Kuje Correctional Centre because of persistent security concerns at the facility.

Thursday’s hearing, which was expected to deal with the motion seeking Kanu’s relocation back to Abuja, took a dramatic turn when Emmanuel attempted to take up the matter without legal qualifications. Justice Omotosho advised him to either engage a competent lawyer or approach the Legal Aid Council if he lacked financial means.

According to the judge, the court could not entertain any submissions until the application was properly moved by a qualified counsel. Emmanuel then asked for a new date, and the court fixed the hearing for December 8, despite an already congested schedule.

During the sitting, Justice Omotosho also issued a stern warning regarding public commentary on the case. He dismissed as misleading the claims made by one of Kanu’s previous lawyers, who now acts as a consultant, that the defendant must be physically present in court before an appeal record can be compiled. The judge sought confirmation from the other lawyers present, and they unanimously agreed that the law does not require an appellant’s physical presence for the preparation of appeal documents. He cautioned those speaking publicly on the matter to stop spreading inaccurate interpretations of the legal process.

Kanu’s application, which he signed from custody, requests the court to order his transfer from the Sokoto facility to any correctional centre within the Abuja judicial division. He argues that the current distance of more than 700 kilometres is obstructing his ability to exercise his constitutional right to appeal his conviction.

He further stated that preparing his appeal requires constant communication with both the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal in Abuja, as well as access to relatives and consultants who live in the capital. In the alternative, he asked the court to move him to either the Suleja Correctional Centre or the Keffi Correctional Centre, both located near Abuja, to enable him to manage his appeal effectively.

Kanu maintains that his isolation and lack of a legal team have created significant hardship. He argues that these conditions hinder his ability to engage meaningfully with the judicial process. According to him, the situation violates his rights under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees fair hearing and the ability to defend oneself adequately.

The court is expected to review all arguments and take a decision when the matter returns on December 8.