Federal High Court Throws Out Kanu’s Transfer Suit
Federal High Court Rejects Kanu’s Prison Transfer Bid
THE Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed an application filed by Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), seeking his transfer from the Sokoto Correctional Facility.
Justice James Omotosho struck out the ex-parte motion on Tuesday after Kanu’s lawyer, Demdoo Asan of the Legal Aid Council, withdrew from the case, citing a breakdown in the lawyer-client relationship.
Lawyer Explains Withdrawal
Asan told the court that he had encountered serious challenges in prosecuting the application. He said that Kanu’s relatives, who were expected to depose to the affidavit supporting the motion, repeatedly failed to appear at the Legal Aid Council office despite assurances.
More significantly, he disclosed that the applicant attempted to dictate how the case should be argued in court, an approach he said was unacceptable.
“He wants to instruct me on what to say in court. That is against the ethics of our profession,” Asan said, adding that he could not continue under such conditions.
According to him, the Legal Aid Council had resolved that if a client insisted on directing counsel’s courtroom conduct, such a client should seek representation elsewhere.
Court Grants Leave to Withdraw
Relying on Order 50, Rule 1 of the Federal High Court Rules, Asan formally sought the court’s permission to withdraw from the matter.
Justice Omotosho granted the request, praising the counsel for upholding professional standards and the dignity of the judiciary. The judge also approved the withdrawal of the Legal Aid Council from further representation of Kanu in the matter.
Why the Motion Failed
Delivering his ruling on the substantive application, Justice Omotosho described the ex-parte motion as incompetent. He observed that there was no evidence before the court to show that the relevant parties had been served since the last hearing date of 8 December 2025.
The absence of proof of service, the judge said, rendered the application defective and incapable of being considered by the court.
He consequently struck out the motion and directed that proper service be effected on all necessary parties if the applicant intended to refile the request.
