The court ruling did not shut the door outright against Nnamdi Kanu's request for transfer from Sokoto prison.
The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Monday, rejected convicted Biafra agitator Nnamdi Kanu's request for transfer from Sokoto prison to anyone in Abuja or its neighbourhood.
Judge James Omotosho held that Mr Kanu's application, moved by a lawyer from the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria (LACON), Demdoo Asan, cannot be granted through ex-parte motion - an application designed to be heard in the absence of the adverse parties.
Follow us on WhatsApp | LinkedIn for the latest headlines
Mr Omotosho held that the respondents - the federal government and the Nigerian Correctional Service (NCoS) - ought to be put on notice for them to respond appropriately in the interest of justice, before the request could be granted.
It implies that the judge has yet to shut the door against Mr Kanu's request.
The path toed by the judge on Monday, ordering Mr Kanu to serve the adverse parties, signals his interest to decide the request on merit after reviewing the responses of the prosecution and prison authorities to it.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that, on 20 November, Mr Kanu, the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), was convicted of terrorism charges and jailed for life.
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.
Handing down the sentence, Mr Omotosho ordered that Mr Kanu should be held in any secure prison in any part of the country but not Abuja, which has a history of a recent jailbreak.
Mr Kanu subsequently filed his ex parte application seeking "an order compelling the complainant (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 (Kanu) to effectively prosecute his constitutionally guaranteed right of appeal."
On 4 December, when the application came up for hearing, Mr Omotosho rejected an attempt by Mr Kanu's brother, Prince Emmanuel, to move the application on behalf of the convict.
The judge said Mr Emmanuel could not be permitted to move the application because he was not a lawyer. Mr Omotosho then advised Mr Emmanuel to either engage a lawyer or approach the Legal Aid Council to provide him a lawyer to move the application.
The judge then rescheduled the hearing to Monday (today).
Hearing
At Monday's hearing, Mr Asan from the Legal Aid Council announced appearance for Mr Kanu.
The judge called the lawyer's attention to one of the prayers on the application which sought an order "compelling" the federal government and the NCoS to transfer the convict to a correctional facility that is close to the jurisdiction of the court.
The judge questioned the lawyer on the propriety of the use of the word, "compel" in the application and if the prosecution and the NCoS ought not be served the application
"You are from the Legal Aid Council, counsel? Do you think it is through an ex-parte motion that this application ought to be granted, bearing in mind that judgment was delivered when the two parties were present?
"Also, among the respondents to obey the order is the correctional service, and you think it is through an ex-parte motion that the court can make the order for his transfer?
"Don't you think this application should have come by motion on notice," the judge asked.
Responding, Mr Asan admitted that the respondents (prosecution and the NCoS) needed to be put on notice before the matter could be decided judiciously.
"My lord, the respondents have the right to be heard. Usually, the court can make an order that they should be put on notice," the lawyer said.
"So, do you agree that the respondents should be heard and that this application cannot be taken now?" Mr Omotosho asked further.
"Yes, my lord, they should be heard. We will be applying that the complainant and other parties involved should be put on notice," Mr Asan applied.
Mr Omotosho, therefore, struck out the first prayer in Mr Kanu's motion and ordered that the prosecution and the NCoS be served for them to respond in the interest of justice.
"A law school student will know that this application cannot be granted ex-parte," the judge said.
Mr Asan, however, explained to the court that he was on leave when he was called by his superior officer to come and take up Mr Kanu's matter.
It will be recalled that Mr Kanu sacked a team of senior lawyers leading his defence in October. Since then, Mr Kanu has taken all major legal decisions all by himself and personally submitted all court filings in the trial up till when he was convicted and jailed in November.
Judge picks hole in Kanu's appeal
The judge also picked a hole in Mr Kanu's notice of appeal which is the foundation for the request for his transfer from Sokoto prison.
Mr Kanu had requested a transfer to a prison in Abuja or its environs to be able to pursue his appeal against his conviction in the Abuja division of the Court of Appeal.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
But a review of the notice of appeal by the judge revealed a dating blunder on the document, made to appear to have predated the judgement it is seeking to overturn.
"Counsel, do you have your notice of appeal?"
Responding, Mr Asan said he was only instructed to take up the brief.
The judge then directed the court registrar to show the lawyer the notice of appeal filed by Mr Kanu from the court file upon which the convict based his application.
Mr Omotosho then asked Mr Asan to read out the date the notice of appeal was filed.
"Because you are coming in as a new lawyer and I expect you know the law, what date is that?" the judge asked.
"This notice of appeal is dated 10th November my lord, that was before the judgment," Mr Asan responded.
Mr Omotosho, therefore, said based on the judgment delivered on 20 November, there was no notice of appeal before him.
The lawyer then said they would do the needful.
The judge consequently adjourned the case until 27 January 2026 to enable the applicant to serve the necessary parties and for the application to be taken.
(NAN)
