The Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Defence Consortium has described as a “charade” the proceedings that led to the striking out of a motion filed by the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, seeking transfer from the Sokoto Correctional Centre.
Kanu is currently serving a life sentence at the Sokoto prison following his conviction on terrorism-related charges brought against him by the Federal Government. On Tuesday, an Abuja Federal High Court presided over by Justice James Omotosho struck out a motion in which Kanu requested to be transferred to a correctional facility within the Federal Capital Territory or its environs.
The motion was struck out after Demdoo Asan, a senior legal officer with the Legal Aid Council, informed the court of his intention to withdraw from the matter, citing irreconcilable differences. Asan reportedly told the court that Kanu sought to dictate how the case should be conducted and control what counsel would say in court, a condition he said he could not accept.
Reacting to the ruling, the defence team faulted both the process and the court’s decision to assign a Legal Aid Council lawyer to Kanu. In a statement issued after the proceedings, Barrister Njoku Jude Njoku, speaking on behalf of the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium, argued that Kanu did not have access to legal representation and was therefore denied a fair hearing.
The defence team noted that lawyers from the Legal Aid Council are typically assigned to defendants without counsel, stressing that Kanu had previously opted to represent himself before his conviction. They further argued that the assigned lawyer had no access to Kanu and could not provide meaningful representation.
Describing the hearing as “procedural theatre,” the consortium insisted that striking out the motion does not affect Kanu’s legal position, stating that the case has moved beyond the trial court and will be challenged at the Court of Appeal.
According to the defence team, the appeal will raise issues including jurisdiction, conviction under a repealed statute, denial of fair hearing, and other alleged legal defects, adding that the ruling has further weakened, rather than strengthened, the judgment.
