A Federal High Court in Abuja has struck out the motion ex-parte filed by convicted self acclaimed leader the proscribed separatist group the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu seeking to be relocated from the Sokoto prison where he is currently being held.
Justice James Omotosho, in a ruling on Tuesday, held that not only was the motion incompetent, Kanu failed to comply with the order made by the court on December 8, 2025 that he should convert motion ex-parte to a motion on notice and serve it on those to by affected by the order to be made by the court.
Justice Omotosho said: “In respect of the application before this court, it has to do with an application that was brought incompetently as par seeking for the movements of the convict from where he is presently kept.
The application is not competent. However in the interest of justice, when it came up, the court gave hint and urged that, that same be converted, in other words, telling the applicant to go and file motion on notice.
“The applicant, having not filed the motion on notice today, the 27th day of January, 2026, there is no any application for determination before this court.
It is based on this that the motion ex-parte is struck out as there is nothing to be determined,” Justice Omotosho said.
Earlier, when the case was called, the judge asked the registrar to confirm the service of the process and hearing notice on the respondents (FG and NCos).
The registrar told the court that there was no proof of service of the motion on notice and hearing notice on the respondents.
A lawyer from the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria (LACON), Demdoo Asan, who appeared for Kanu, said that although the court had on the last adjourned date directed that the motion be served on the respondents, he has been unable to do so.
Asan said he has not seen Kanu’s relatives since they last attended court, adding that efforts to get them to come to his office so that they could sign court papers failed
He said: “They kept saying they will get back to me and that wasn’t done.
“My lord, that has been the reason counsel could not filed the motion on notice because counsel cannot depose to that affidavit personally.”
The lawyer said the second reason why he could not file and serve the respondents was that Kanu had sought to dictate to him how to handle the case.
Asan cited Order 50, Rule 1 of the Federal High Court Rules, therefore and applied to the court to be allowed to withdraw from further representing Kanu, an application the judge granted.
