A Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered the convicted leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, to serve the Federal Government and the Nigerian Correctional Service (NCoS) his motion seeking to be transferred from the Sokoto Prison.
In a ruling yesterday, Justice James Omotosho declined to grant the motion ex parte Kanu filed, but ordered him to serve the Federal Government and the NCoS to enable them respond accordingly.
Kanu, in the motion ex parte, prayed for “an order compelling the complainant (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”.
Alternatively, 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 (Kanu) to effectively prosecute his constitutionally guaranteed right of appeal”.
At the commencement of proceedings yesterday, Kanu’s lawyer, Demdoo Asan from the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria (LACON), moved the ex parte motion.
Justice Omotosho drew Asan’s attention to the first prayer in the motion, which is for an order “compelling” the Federal Government and NCoS to transfer the convict to a correctional facility that is close to the jurisdiction of the court.
The judge asked Asan if he would like to insist on the first prayer, particularly as it relates to the word: “compel” used in the ex parte motion.
Justice Omotosho also asked Asan if the prosecution and the NCoS, in whose custody Kanu is currently being kept, ought to be served with the motion or not.
The judge added: “You are from Legal Aid Council, counsel? Do you think it is by ex parte motion that this application ought to be granted, having it in mind that judgment was delivered when the two parties were present?
“Also, among the respondents to obey the order is the Correctional Service, and you think it is through ex parte motion that the court can make the order for his transfer?
“Don’t you think this application should have come by motion on notice?” the judge asked.
Responding, Asan admitted that the respondents (prosecution and the NCoS) ought to be put on notice to enable them to respond.
The lawyer added: “My lord, the respondents have the right to be heard. Usually, the court can make an order that they should be put on notice.”
Asan said he agreed with the judge’s observation that the respondents should be heard and that the motion ex parte could not be taken now.
He added: “They (the respondents) should be heard. We will be applying that the complainant and other parties involved should be put on notice.”
Ruling, Justice Omotosho struck out the first prayer in Kanu’s motion ex parte, as requested by his lawyer.
The judge then ordered that the prosecution and the NCoS be served with the motion for them to respond in the interest of justice.
He faulted the notice of appeal, which Kanu filed on November 10, before the court’s November 20 judgment, which convicted him and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
Justice Omotosho held that, based on the judgment delivered by his court on November 20, there is currently no notice of appeal before his court.
He adjourned till January 27, next year, to enable Kanu serve the prosecution and the NCoS, as ordered by the court and for the motion to be heard.