The Federal High Court in Abuja strikes out a motion filed by Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), seeking his transfer from the Sokoto Correctional Facility. Justice James Kolawole Omotosho rules that the ex-parte application lacks competence and cannot stand.
According to Mediaplusng.com, the motion collapses after Kanu’s legal representative, Demdoo Asan, a senior legal officer with the Legal Aid Council, applies to withdraw from the case. Asan tells the court that irreconcilable differences have arisen between him and the applicant, making it impossible to continue legal representation in line with professional standards.
Asan explains that since the last adjourned date, he has been in constant communication with Kanu’s relatives, who were expected to depose to affidavits in support of the application. He says despite repeated assurances, none of them showed up at the Legal Aid Council office to complete the necessary processes.
He further informs the court that Kanu insists on dictating how the case should be handled and what counsel should say in court. Asan says such conduct undermines legal ethics and the independence of counsel, adding that as an officer of the court, he cannot accept instructions that compromise professional judgment, Mediaplusng.com reports.
According to Asan, he consulted his superiors at the Legal Aid Council, who shared his concerns. He says the Council maintains that once a matter is assigned to counsel, it must be handled in line with the law and professional discretion, not controlled by a client. He therefore invokes Order 50, Rule 1 of the Federal High Court Rules to formally withdraw from the case.
In his ruling, Justice Omotosho commends Asan for upholding the dignity and integrity of the court. He grants leave for Asan and the Legal Aid Council to withdraw entirely from representing Kanu in the matter.
The judge holds that the ex-parte motion seeking Kanu’s transfer is incompetent. He notes that although the court earlier directed that relevant parties be served in the interest of justice and fairness, there is no proof of service before the court.
Justice Omotosho states that from December 8, 2025, when the matter was last adjourned, to January 27, 2026, no evidence is presented to show that other parties were properly served with the application.
Based on these findings, the court strikes out the motion in its entirety for lacking competence and failing to meet procedural requirements.
The ruling effectively ends Kanu’s attempt to secure a transfer from the Sokoto Correctional Facility through the struck-out application, while leaving open the option for him to seek fresh legal representation and approach the court properly, in line with the rules.
The case once again highlights the court’s insistence on due process, professional conduct, and strict compliance with procedural rules in criminal and post-conviction matters.
