Sokoto Unsafe For Kanu, Lawyer Demands Immediate Transfer
Airstrike Fallout Revives Custody Safety Debate
A fresh legal alarm has been raised over the detention location of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), after a Christmas Day U.S. airstrike hit terrorist targets in Sokoto State. His counsel, Barr. Aloy Ejimakor, publicly called for his immediate relocation, arguing that the attack has validated long-standing concerns about insecurity in Nigeria’s far Northwest.
Ejimakor made the demand on Friday through his verified X account, hours after the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) confirmed that its forces, acting alongside Nigerian troops, carried out “precision strikes” on ISIS camps in Sokoto, killing multiple militants. The statement by Ejimakor framed the airstrike not simply as a counter-terror success, but as proof that the region remains a volatile terror corridor unfit for high-risk detentions.
“The U.S. military strike against terrorists in Sokoto has finally confirmed that Sokoto is riddled with terrorists and thus was never a safe place of custody for MAZI NNAMDI KANU,” he wrote, adding that “it is now more urgent that he be transferred out of the terrorist belt of Northern Nigeria.”
Kanu has been held in Sokoto since 2021 under DSS custody on terrorism-related charges. Although AFRICOM did not initially disclose casualty figures for the broader operation, the lawyer argued that the symbolism of foreign missiles landing in the state now places Kanu at heightened risk, particularly amid religiously-charged interpretations of insecurity in the region.
Life Sentence, Mercy Remark, and a Divided Public Reaction
The custody controversy unfolds against the backdrop of Kanu’s recent conviction in Abuja. In November, Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court sentenced Kanu to life imprisonment on five terrorism-linked counts (1, 2, 4, 5 and 6) out of the seven-count charge filed by the DSS. Count 3—belonging to a proscribed terrorist group—earned him 20 years without the option of fine, while Count 7, unlawful importation of a radio transmitter to advance Radio Biafra’s clandestine broadcasts, resulted in a five-year sentence, also without fine. The court ordered the transmitter forfeited to the Federal Government.
In delivering the sentence, Justice Omotosho noted that the law permitted capital punishment for terrorism offences but stated he opted for leniency. His remark—that he extended mercy “as a Christian”—triggered mixed reactions among legal analysts, civil rights groups, and public commentators, with critics arguing that judicial reasoning must avoid religious qualifiers that could fuel perceptions of partiality in sensitive political trials.
The judge had earlier ordered Kanu removed from the courtroom for repeated outbursts and objections, including accusations that the court “did not know the law” and was biased. Three motions filed by the IPOB leader after adjournment were dismissed for lacking merit. The judge ruled that he be kept in protective custody anywhere in Nigeria but specifically barred Kuje Prison, Abuja, citing security and administrative considerations.
Legal Implications and What Comes Next
Legal experts say Ejimakor’s post raises a broader question about detention geography in terrorism-linked trials: whether location safety, not only facility security, should factor into custody planning for high-profile detainees. While Nigeria’s legal framework allows protective custody transfers, the political sensitivity around Kanu’s case means any relocation decision could set a precedent.
Security sources within civil society circles argue that although the airstrike targeted non-state actors, the optics now bolster arguments that terror networks still operate in the region, making it unsuitable for continued detention of a polarising political figure whose safety is already contested in the public domain.
