The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed 8 December to hear a request by convicted Biafra agitator Nnamdi Kanu for his transfer from the prison in Sokoto, North-west Nigeria.
In a motion filed ex parte, Mr Kanu urged the court to order his transfer to a custodial facility closer to Abuja to enable him to conveniently pursue his appeal against his recent conviction and jailing by the court.
|
|
Judge James Omotosho, who on 20 November convicted Mr Kanu and jailed him for life for acts of terrorism, fixed the hearing date on Thursday after declining Mr Kanu’s younger brother, Prince Emmanuel’s request to move the application on behalf of the convict.
Mr Kanu, in the motion ex-parte personally signed by him, stated that due to his inability to appear in person as a result of his incarceration, the court should deem the motion “moved in absentia”.
|
|
|
|---|
Filing the motion as an ex parte application meant that no adverse parties were served or expected to participate in the hearing.
Mr Kanu sought an order compelling the 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.”
Alternately, 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 to effectively prosecute his constitutionally guaranteed right of appeal.”
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Mr Kanu, the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), was convicted for terrorism offences and jailed for life for terrorsim on 20 November.
The court convicted Mr Kanu, a dual citizen of Nigeria and the United Kingdom, over his violent campaigns for the independence of Nigeria’s South-east and neighbouring states of the region as Biafra.
The trial judge, Mr Omotosho, had while sentencing him, urged the NCoS authorities to keep Mr Kanu in a safe correctional centre other than the one in Kuje, Abuja, which in a recent year, experienced a jailbreak.
Thursday’s hearing
When the case was called on Thursday, Mr Omotosho called on Mr Kanu’s legal team to announce appearance.
No lawyer was around to represent the secessionist, who disengaged his legal team in October, towards the end of his trial.
Instead of a lawyer, Mr Kanu’s younger brother, Emmanuel, who is not a lawyer, announced appearance for the IPOB leader.
The judge then told Emmanuel that such an application cannot be moved by him.
“This ex-parte motion cannot be moved on the convict’s behalf because you are not a legal practitioner,” he said.
The judge, who said only a legal practitioner can move the motion, advised Emmanuel to either engage a lawyer or approach the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria for legal representation since the law allows it.
“When I said representation, it is not his (Kanu’s) father, brother, sister or relations I meant. I mean his counsel.
“I am not going to the merit of this application now in the interest of justice.
“But you cannot represent a human being when you are not a lawyer, you can only represent a corporate body.
“Therefore, you cannot move the application because you are not a solicitor or advocate of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.
“For you to be qualified as a lawyer, it will take you another six years or thereabout. So get a counsel to move the application,” the judge said.
When Emmanuel asked for the next adjourned date, Mr Omotosho said though there were cases on the court docket, he would accommodate the case on Monday.
“Thank you sir,” Emmanuel responded.
The judge, therefore, cautioned against misleading the public on how Mr Kanu could compile his record of appeal.
Mr Omotosho said contrary to a remark by Aloy Ejimakor, a member of Mr Kanu’s legal team who later turned to his consultant, the convict need not be in court for his record to be compiled.
“Let me advise generally so that you don’t delay the process.
“The issue of appeal, I must not pretend that I am not part of the society.
“Mr Ejimakor granted an interview, talking about the deprivation of the defendant (Kanu) to compile his record.
“That is an erroneous opinion.
“The defendant may not be in court to compile record. His attendance is not required, though the appearance of his representative may be required.
“The rights of a defendant are different from the rights of a convict,” he said.
The judge equally put the question to lawyers in court on whether it is a necessity for Mr Kanu to be present before his record could be compiled and they responded in the negative.
Mr Omotosho, who advised Emmanuel to engage a knowledgeable lawyer, said that a lawyer who is grossly inadequate in knowledge of appellate procedure should stop misleading the public.
“I think it is high time we addressed the right opinion. Appropriate legal advice is necessary,” he said.
Mr Omotosho consequently refused to give an audience to Emmanuel, having not been a lawyer.
The judge adjourned the matter until 8 December for hearing of the pending application.
Application
Mr Kanu’s request for the change of his place of custody is hinged on eight grounds.
He stated in the ex-parte motion marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015 that he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the court on 20 November.
READ ALSO: ‘I’ll secure your release,’ Abia governor assures Nnamdi Kanu during prison visit
He said the judge, in sentencing him, ordered his detention in any correctional centre in Nigeria except Kuje Correctional Centre.
“On the 21st of November 2025, the applicant was transferred to and is currently detained at the Sokoto Correctional Facility, which is over 700 kilometres from Abuja.
“The applicant, who is currently unrepresented by counsel, intends to personally exercise his constitutional right of appeal against the conviction and sentence.
“The preparation of the notice of appeal and the record of appeal require the applicant’s personal interface with the Registry of this Honourable Court and the Court of Appeal in Abuja.
“All persons critical to assisting the applicant in preparing his appeal, including his relatives, associates, and legal consultants, are based in Abuja.
“The applicant’s continued detention in Sokoto renders his constitutional right to appeal impracticable, occasioning exceptional hardship and potentially defeating the said right, in violation of Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended),” he wrote.
Mr Kanu said it would be in the interest of justice that he be transferred to a facility near Abuja to effectively prosecute his appeal.
(NAN)
Discover more from Premium Times Nigeria
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
