The leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has filed a fresh motion before the Federal High Court in Abuja, adducing reasons why he should be transferred from Sokoto prison.

Kanu was recently convicted, and sentenced to life imprisonment.

But Kanu, in a motion ex parte he personally signed, told the court that his detention in Sokoto Custodial Center would hamper his ability to effectively appeal against his conviction and sentence.

The motion was presented before the trial court on Thursday by Prince Emmanuel Kanu, who is a younger brother to the embattled IPOB leader.

The applicant said in view of the impossibility of his appearance before the court or chambers to personally move the motion, the judge should proceed and hear it in his absence.

In the eight grounds he raised in support of the motion ex parte marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, Kanu stressed that he was on November 20, sentenced by the court after it found him guilty of the seven-count terrorism charge the federal government preferred against him.

He said the court, after the sentence, ordered his detention in any correctional facility in the country except the 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 requires 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 added.

Kanu maintained that it would be in the interest of justice for him to be transferred to a facility near Abuja to enable him to effectively prosecute his appeal.

Consequently, he prayed the court for an order to compel 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.

In the alternative, he 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.”

Meanwhile, when the matter was called, trial Justice James Omotosho declined to grant an audience to Kanu’s brother, Emmanuel, who announced his appearance on behalf of the IPOB leader.

Omotosho told Kanu’s brother that he could not move such an application since he is not a lawyer.

“This ex parte motion cannot be moved on the convict’s behalf because you are not a legal practitioner,” the trial judge insisted.

He implored the applicant to engage a legal practitioner 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 added.

Taking the hint from the court, Emmanuel requested for a hearing date.

Before adjourning the motion till December 8, Justice Omotosho cautioned against what he described as an attempt to mislead the public on Kanu’s case.

He observed that one of Kanu’s former legal representatives, Mr. Aloy Ejimakor, who later became his consultant, insinuated that Kanu could not compile his record of appear owing to where he is currently kept.

Omotosho held that contrary to Ejimakor’s claim, the convict does not need to be in court for the 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 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 a 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,” the judge added.