Why I don’t want to stay in Sokoto prison, Kanu tells court. Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has told the Federal High Court that he does not want to remain in the Sokoto Correctional Facility. He filed an application asking the court to transfer him to a custodial centre closer to Abuja because the current location makes it almost impossible for him to prepare his appeal. His motion has now created fresh debate within political, legal and human rights circles. You can read more about it at http://legit.com

According to Kanu, his transfer to Sokoto on November 21 created a barrier between him and his lawyers. He insisted that the distance prevents him from preparing documents, accessing the court registry, consulting witnesses and holding regular meetings with his legal team. As a result, he asked the court to intervene urgently.

What Kanu asked the court to do

Kanu filed an ex-parte motion requesting an order that directs the Nigerian Correctional Service to move him to a custodial centre within Abuja. He argued that keeping him in Sokoto is unfair because it limits his access to justice. He said that his constitutional right to a meaningful appeal is under pressure because he cannot communicate effectively with his lawyers.

He emphasised that his legal team, documents and key resources are in Abuja. Therefore, the difficulty of long-distance travel makes his defence weak. He told the court that a transfer would help him participate fully in the appeal process.

Meanwhile, the Federal High Court fixed December 8 for the hearing of his transfer motion. The judge also insisted that all legal steps must follow proper procedure. This means only his lawyers can make filings or submissions in court.

Why distance matters in high-profile cases

The Sokoto Correctional Facility is more than 700 kilometres away from Abuja. This large distance has several legal effects. First, it makes it difficult for lawyers to visit frequently. Second, it slows down communication. Third, it reduces the speed at which documents can be exchanged. These delays are critical because appeal cases usually involve strict deadlines and strategic timelines.

Because of this, Kanu believes that the location is not suitable for an appellant who must file motions, prepare fresh evidence and attend scheduled court processes. His team argued that the transfer looks unfair and could damage the credibility of the judicial process. They said the challenge is not only logistical but also legal.

Legal issues raised in the motion

Kanu’s lawyers argued that he has a constitutional right to a fair hearing. They stated that this right includes adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence. They also submitted that he must be able to interact with his lawyers without unnecessary hardship.

The motion highlighted four major legal concerns:

• The long distance between Sokoto and Abuja prevents effective communication with counsel.
• It makes access to court records and filings difficult.
• It creates unnecessary financial and logistical burdens.
• It undermines the fairness of the appeal process.

Kanu insisted that the court should correct the situation to uphold justice. His lawyers argue that the transfer to Sokoto appears to have weakened the fairness of the appeal process. Because the law supports fairness, they believe the court should allow a transfer or order corrective measures.

Political reactions to the transfer

Kanu’s transfer to Sokoto generated significant political reactions. Some southeastern leaders criticised the decision and described it as punitive. They argued that moving him far from Abuja appears designed to isolate him from his support system. They believe it complicates his legal defence.

However, some security officials suggested that the transfer was based on security concerns. They hinted that the move helped ease tension and reduce possible disruptions in Abuja. Because of these competing narratives, opinions remain divided.

Meanwhile, governors from the southeast and south-south have visited him in Sokoto. These visits added a different tone to the political debate because they indicated a new push for dialogue and negotiation. Many observers believe the visits are signs of growing political interest in the case.

Human rights groups react strongly

Human rights organisations have called for fairness in the case. They insist that access to legal representation is a foundational right. They said that administrative decisions should never block an accused person from defending themselves properly.

Legal experts also said the issue is not about politics. Instead, they believe the court should determine whether the transfer interferes with justice. They reminded the public that appeals must remain fair, transparent and accessible.

What the court can do

Kanu’s motion includes several options for the court. He asked for any of the following:

• A direct transfer to a correctional centre in Abuja.
• An order compelling the authorities to allow more frequent lawyer visits.
• A directive enabling secure video communication between him and his legal team.
• Any other order that would protect his right to appeal.

These options are flexible because the court must balance security with fairness. Kanu argued that a lack of communication is a major threat to his case. He said the court must remedy the issue to avoid injustice.

The December 8 hearing and why it matters

The hearing scheduled for December 8 is crucial. It could determine whether Kanu receives the relief he seeks. If the court grants his request, he may return to a correctional centre in Abuja. However, if the court refuses, his legal team may seek other remedies or escalate the matter further.

This ruling may shape the next phase of Kanu’s legal journey. It may also influence public perception of fairness within the Nigerian justice system. Because of the case’s political sensitivity, many observers expect the ruling to attract national attention.

This issue in a broader justice context

Kanu’s motion echoes a wider national conversation about fair trial rights, correctional practices and administrative decisions. Many legal analysts believe Nigeria must improve the conditions under which detainees prepare legal defences.

In fact, the conversation also connects to recent rulings involving security agencies and their powers. For instance, the Court of Appeal recently barred Vehicle Inspection Officers (VIO) from impounding cars, a judgement widely praised by motorists. You can read more about that ruling here: Victory for motorists as Appeal Court bars VIO from impounding cars. This internal link provides useful perspective on how Nigerian courts continue to refine citizens’ rights.

Although the two cases differ, both show how courts play a central role in protecting the public from administrative overreach. Because of this trend, many Nigerians expect the judiciary to weigh Kanu’s request with fairness and objectivity.

What happens next?

The next steps depend on the court’s ruling. If Kanu secures a transfer, his appeal process may move smoothly. If not, his lawyers may file new motions or seek constitutional remedies. Political actors may also respond, which could affect public dialogue.

Nonetheless, the most important point is that the court will determine whether Kanu’s access to justice has been restricted. This ruling may influence how future transfer decisions are handled nationwide.

Conclusion

Kanu’s refusal to remain in the Sokoto Correctional Facility has ignited discussions about fairness, access to justice and political strategy. While the government may emphasise security concerns, Kanu highlights the urgency of his appeal rights. Because of these competing interests, the December 8 hearing will be one of the most closely watched court sessions of the year.

Ultimately, Nigerians expect the court to balance fairness, security and constitutional principles as it makes a decision that could shape the future of the case.

To stay updated on major legal and political developments, you can subscribe to our platform here: Subscribe