A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on Tuesday struck out an ex-parte motion filed by the convicted leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, seeking his transfer from the Sokoto Correctional Centre to either Kuje or Keffi Correctional Centre.
Kanu’s legal representative, Demdoo Asan of the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria, withdrew from the matter, citing irreconcilable issues between him and his client. Asan told the court that Kanu wanted to control what the counsel would say in court and insisted on dictating the proceedings.
He explained that despite repeated phone calls and promises, Kanu’s relatives did not appear at the Legal Aid office to depose to the application. Asan said he could not continue to represent the applicant under such conditions.
“I cannot, in good faith, accept that,” Asan said, adding that the Legal Aid Council shared his position. He invoked Order 50, Rule 1 of the Federal High Court Rules to formally withdraw from the case.
Justice James Omotosho commended the counsel for upholding the dignity of the court and granted him leave to withdraw. The judge also granted the Legal Aid Council permission to cease representation.
The court had previously declined to grant Kanu’s motion in December 2025, stating that the application was not competent as it was filed ex-parte without serving the Federal Government and the Nigerian Correctional Service, both of whom are respondents in the case.
Kanu, who was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for terrorism offences, had sought an order compelling the Federal Government and the Nigerian Correctional Service to transfer him to a facility within the court’s jurisdiction. He argued that the move was necessary to enable him effectively prosecute his constitutionally guaranteed right of appeal.
Justice Omotosho had ruled that the motion should have been filed as a motion on notice, allowing the respondents to be put on notice and respond appropriately. The judge also asked if the prosecution and the Nigerian Correctional Service should be served, to which the counsel agreed.
During Tuesday’s proceedings, the judge noted that there was no proof of service filed since the last adjournment on December 8, 2025. As a result, he struck out the ex-parte motion for lacking competence.
