Friday, December 5, 2025 - A Federal High Court in Abuja, on Thursday, halted an attempt by Emmanuel Kanu to appear for his elder brother, Nnamdi Kanu, in court.
The judge ruled that only a qualified lawyer can represent
the detained leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB).
Also, the court moved the hearing of a pending application
seeking to transfer the convict from the Sokoto Correctional Facility to
December 8.
Nnamdi Kanu, who was convicted on November 20, 2025, on
seven terrorism charges and handed a life sentence, has remained in custody in
Sokoto.
He was moved there shortly after the judgment, following the
court’s concerns about recurring security breaches at the Kuje Correctional
Centre.
Thursday’s sitting took a new turn when Emmanuel stood up in
court and announced that he would represent the IPOB leader. The presiding
judge, Justice James Omotosho, immediately stopped him.
The judge insisted that the law does not allow an ordinary
citizen to appear for anyone in a criminal matter, stressing that only a
licensed legal practitioner can move an application on behalf of a defendant or
convict.
Justice Omotosho, addressing Emmanuel directly, explained
that representation in court cannot be done by a relative, no matter the
relationship.
He advised him to either hire a competent lawyer or seek
assistance from the Legal Aid Council if he lacked the means.
The judge said the court would not consider the substance of
the application until it is properly filed and moved by counsel.
Emmanuel then requested the next possible date, and the
court fixed December 8, despite the judge stating that Monday was already heavy
with cases.
The judge also issued a warning regarding public commentary
on the case. He noted that one of Kanu’s former lawyers, later acting as a
consultant, had claimed that the convict could not compile his appeal record
unless he appeared physically in court.
Justice Omotosho dismissed this as misleading, saying the
law does not require a convict to be physically present in court for the appeal
record to be prepared.
He put the question before other lawyers in the courtroom,
who unanimously agreed that Kanu’s presence was not a requirement for the
compilation process.
The judge urged those speaking publicly on the matter to
stop spreading incorrect interpretations of the law.
After refusing to take Emmanuel’s appearance, the judge
adjourned the case to December 8 for proper hearing of the motion.
Kanu’s application, which he personally signed from custody,
asks the court to order his transfer from the Sokoto facility to a correctional
centre within the Abuja jurisdiction.
According to him, the distance—over 700 kilometres—makes it
practically impossible for him to exercise his constitutional right to appeal
his conviction.
He argued that preparing his appeal requires communication
with the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal in Abuja, as well as access
to his relatives and consultants who all reside in the capital.
The judge also requested, in the alternative, that the court
move him to Suleja or Keffi, both of which are near Abuja, so he can properly
manage the appeal process.
Kanu’s motion listed several reasons why his current
detention location poses hardship. He stated that he is currently without a
legal team and plans to personally handle aspects of his appeal, which demands
direct contact with court officials.
He added that leaving him in remote detention undermines his
rights under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution.
The court will consider all the issues when the matter comes
up on December 8.
0 Comments