Court Adjourns Hearing on Nnamdi Kanu’s Request for Transfer From Sokoto Prison to January 27

The Federal High Court in Abuja has postponed the hearing of Nnamdi Kanu’s application seeking his transfer from the Sokoto Correctional Centre to a facility nearer to the FCT. Justice James Omotosho adjourned the case to January 27, 2026, directing that the Correctional Service and prosecution be notified. Kanu, who was recently sentenced to life imprisonment on terrorism charges, argues that his distant detention location hinders effective legal consultation and obstructs his appeal process. His legal team maintains that relocating him to Kuje, Keffi, or any facility within the court’s jurisdiction is essential for fair defence.

Nnamdi Kanu Asks Court to Move Him From Sokoto Prison, Cites Hardship Blocking His Appeal

IPOB leader Nnamdi Kanu, recently sentenced to life imprisonment, has filed a fresh motion at the Federal High Court in Abuja requesting his transfer from the Sokoto Custodial Centre. Kanu argued that being detained over 700 kilometres away from Abuja makes it impossible for him to effectively prepare and pursue his appeal, describing the situation as a violation of his constitutional rights.
His motion—personally signed—was presented by his brother, Prince Emmanuel Kanu, who urged the court to hear the case in Kanu’s absence. However, Justice James Omotosho rejected Emmanuel’s appearance, ruling that he could not represent the convict because he is not a lawyer.
Kanu asked to be moved to a facility within Abuja’s jurisdiction or to a closer correctional centre such as Suleja or Keffi. The court adjourned the hearing to 8 December 2025, advising Kanu to hire legal counsel. The judge also cautioned the public against misinterpreting court processes regarding appeal documentation.

Court Rejects Nnamdi Kanu’s Bid to Leave Sokoto Prison, Says Brother Cannot Represent Him

The Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a fresh attempt by IPOB leader Nnamdi Kanu to challenge his placement in Sokoto prison. His younger brother, Emmanuel Kanu, appeared before the court to move a motion seeking Kanu’s transfer to Abuja, arguing it would allow him to properly pursue his appeal.
However, Justice James Omotosho refused to hear the motion, stating that Emmanuel could not represent the convict because he is not a lawyer. The judge ruled that only a legal practitioner can move such an application on behalf of a sentenced person.
Kanu was recently handed multiple prison terms, including life imprisonment, for terrorism-related offences. His sentencing continues to spark national debate, with analysts urging dialogue to address tensions in the southeast.

Trial of Ex-Acting Accountant-General Nwabuoku Stalled as Defence Counsel Fails to Appear in N868m Fraud Case

The trial of former Acting Accountant-General of the Federation, Chukwunyere Anamekwe Nwabuoku, was on Thursday stalled at the Federal High Court in Abuja after his lead counsel, Norrison Quakers (SAN), failed to appear. Nwabuoku faces an amended nine-count charge filed by the EFCC, alleging money laundering and diversion of N868.4 million during his tenure as Director of Finance at the Ministry of Defence. Despite opposition from the prosecution, Justice James Omotosho granted an adjournment “in the interest of justice,” shifting the trial to February 2, 2026. The court had earlier ruled that Nwabuoku must enter his defence after dismissing his no-case submission.

Court Debunks Assassination Rumour on Judge Who Sentenced Nnamdi Kanu — Labels Viral Claims ‘Fake News’


The Federal High Court has firmly denied a viral report alleging that Justice James Omotosho survived an assassination attempt days after sentencing IPOB leader Nnamdi Kanu to life imprisonment.

The rumour, circulated by a Facebook blogger, claimed the judge was attacked and rushed to the hospital. However, in an official statement on Sunday, Chief Registrar Sulaiman Hassan described the story as completely false, unfounded, and designed to mislead Nigerians.

The statement, titled “Rebuttal to False Publication by ‘Celebrity Blogger’ on the Alleged Assassination Attempt on Justice James Omotosho”, urged the public to disregard the report and refrain from spreading misinformation.

“We firmly and unequivocally declare that the said report is completely false,” the court stated.
“The public is advised to treat this publication as fake news.”

Hassan expressed concern over the motive behind the fabrication, noting that such claims could spark panic and undermine confidence in the judiciary. He called on security agencies to investigate and prosecute those behind the malicious publication under cybercrime and defamation laws.

BACKGROUND ON THE CASE
Justice Omotosho had on Thursday sentenced Nnamdi Kanu to life imprisonment on terrorism charges. While several counts carried the death penalty, the judge opted for leniency, saying:

“As a Christian, I chose to be merciful.”

Kanu received life sentences on multiple counts, with additional terms running concurrently. The court also ordered his transfer to protective custody outside Kuje Prison and restricted his access to digital devices.

The judge further ruled that Kanu’s seized radio transmitter be forfeited to the Federal Government, with DSS allowed to pursue forfeiture of additional exhibits.

Describing the IPOB leader as “unruly” and “not remorseful,” Justice Omotosho maintained that the defendant still demonstrated “a tendency of violence.”

Nnamdi Kanu moved from DSS detention to Sokoto prison.

Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has been transferred to a maximum-security correctional facility in Sokoto State following his sentencing to life imprisonment on Thursday by a Federal High Court in Abuja.

Justice James Omotosho delivered the judgment convicting Kanu on multiple terrorism-related charges. He was immediately remanded in the custody of the Nigerian Correctional Service, ending his years-long detention at the Department of State Services (DSS) facility in Abuja.

His Lawyer, Aloy Ejimakor confirmed the development on Social Media.

He wrote; “MAZI NNAMDI KANU has just been moved from DSS Abuja to the correctional facility (prison) in Sokoto; so far away from his lawyers, family, loved ones and well wishers.”

Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja did indeed dismiss a fresh bail application from Nnamdi Kanu on Thursday, November 20, 2025. This ruling preceded the court's subsequent decision to convict the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader on terrorism charges.

A Federal High Court in Abuja has convicted Nnamdi Kanu of the proscribed separatist group, Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) on all the offences contained in the seven-count terrorism charge.

Justice James Omotosho, in his ongoing judgment in Kanu’s trial, found him guilty on all the counts in the charge being prosecuted by the Department of State Services (DSS).

Justice Omotosho held that the prosecution led sufficient credible evidence to establish its case against Kanu.

The judge said the court has no option than to believe the evidence as led by the prosecution since the defendant failed to enter his defence, but chose to gamble by resting his case on that of the prosecution.

Justice Omotosho is still reading the remaining part of the judgment.

Court Fixes 20 November for Judgment in Nnamdi Kanu’s Terrorism Trial.

The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed 20 November for judgment in the trial of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), over allegations of terrorism.

Justice James Omotosho scheduled the judgment date on Friday after foreclosing Kanu’s defence, following the IPOB leader’s continued refusal to open his defence on the grounds that the charges against him were filed under a repealed law.

“This court has given the defendant the opportunity required under Section 36 of the Constitution, and I will not allow this to continue,” the judge said, ruling that Kanu had effectively waived his right to defence.

Earlier on Friday, the court gave Kanu about one hour to file the documents he claimed he required, but the situation remained unchanged.

The development comes after several adjournments in the past month, during which Kanu who disengaged his legal team and opted to represent himself maintained that there was “no valid charge” against him.

The Nigerian government has been prosecuting Kanu on seven terrorism-related charges since 2015, linked to his alleged secessionist campaign for an independent Biafran state. He has consistently denied all wrongdoing.

The prosecution closed its case in June after calling five witnesses. Kanu’s subsequent no-case submission was dismissed in September, with the court ruling that he had a case to answer.

Despite being urged by the judge to prepare for his defence, Kanu insisted that the charges were invalid because they were based on a repealed version of the terrorism law.

He told the court he needed to consult with his legal consultants Nnaemeka Ejiofor, Aloy Ejimakor, Maxwell Okpara and Mandela Umegborogu before proceeding, but the court ultimately foreclosed the defence after repeated delays.

The judgment is now scheduled for 20 November.

Court Sets November 20 for Judgment in Nnamdi Kanu’s Terrorism Trial
Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed November 20 for judgment in the terrorism trial of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu.

The judge announced the date on Friday after Kanu failed to open his defence, despite being granted six days to do so. Justice Omotosho ruled that since the defendant did not utilise the opportunity to defend himself, he could not claim denial of his constitutional right to a fair hearing.

Earlier, the court had given Kanu until November 5 to begin his defence or forfeit the right. The judge had warned that failure to proceed would be deemed a waiver.

During the proceedings, Kanu—who is representing himself—told the court that he would not enter any defence, insisting there were no valid charges against him. He demanded his immediate release, arguing that his continued trial was unlawful.

Prosecuting counsel Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN) objected to Kanu’s fresh filings, saying they were not properly submitted and accused him of attempting to delay the case. He urged the court to treat the documents as Kanu’s final written address and proceed to judgment.

In his ruling, Justice Omotosho held that Kanu’s documents would be considered at judgment, noting that since Kanu is not a lawyer, he should be allowed to seek legal assistance if necessary.

You’ve Last Chance To defend Yourself, Court Tells Kanu; Sowore Still Wanted CP.

ABUJA–The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, on Wednesday, said it would give the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu, one last opportunity to defend the seven-count terrorism charge the Federal Government entered against him.

Consequently, trial Justice James Omotosho adjourned the case till November 7 for the defendant to open his defence as he was previously ordered to do by the court.

The trial judge warned that he would foreclose Kanu’s right should he fail to enter his defence on the next adjourned date.

He said the decision was anchored on tenets of justice that required that the defendant should be granted sufficient opportunity to exonerate himself.

“We had adjourned till today for the defendant to put in his defence or be deemed closed.

But, I am bound to give him another opportunity to put in his defence.

“If he does not, I will deem him closed. I know that he is an Economist and not a lawyer.

“I will give the last opportunity to the defendant to put in his defence, failure of which he would be deemed closed,” Justice Omotosho held.

Court Gives Nnamdi Kanu 24 Hours to Finalise Defence in Terrorism Trial

Judge James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered Biafra agitator, Nnamdi Kanu, to decide within 24 hours whether he will open his defence in the terrorism case filed against him by the Federal Government.

The judge, who adjourned proceedings to Wednesday, insisted that Mr. Kanu must either present his defence or formally waive his right to do so. He again advised the IPOB leader to engage lawyers experienced in criminal law or appoint counsel willing to take up the case on his behalf.

Mr. Kanu, however, maintained his position that the terrorism charges were unlawful, arguing that no valid case had been instituted against him.

Tuesday’s session marks yet another development in the prolonged legal back-and-forth over Mr. Kanu’s defence strategy. The judge has repeatedly shifted hearing dates in recent weeks to allow him the opportunity to clarify his stance and proceed with his defence.

PDP National convention: Nobody will use me, my loyalists Wike blows hot.

The Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, FCT, Nyesom Wike, has warned against being used as a bargaining tool for negotiation in the Peoples Democratic Party’s ongoing crisis.
‎
‎Wike issued the warning while expressing concerns over the internal destruction of the party and emphasized the need for a return to due process.
‎
‎The Minister issued the warning in Abuja on Friday during a meeting with the Concerned PDP Stakeholders after the Abuja Federal High Court ruling that halted the November national convention scheduled for Ibadan, Oyo State.
‎
‎During the meeting, Wike warned against any attempt to hijack the PDP’s leadership.
‎
‎“Let me be clear, nobody, and I mean nobody, will use us to negotiate for anything. We are part of this party; we have sacrificed for it. But we will not allow anybody to trade us off for personal gain.
‎
‎“Those of us fighting today are not doing so for ourselves. We are doing it because we want the PDP to stand for something, for due process, fairness, and respect for law,” he said.

Justice James Omotosho had barred the PDP from holding its national convention scheduled for November 15 and 16 in Ibadan, Oyo State.

The judge delivered the judgment while upholding a case brought by three aggrieved PDP members.

Omotosho directed the PDP to revisit and rectify its internal issues, emphasizing the need for the party to send the mandatory 21-day notice before proceeding with the convention.

KANU DECLINES TO ENTER DEFENCE, INSISTS NO CASE AGAINST HIM.

The leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has refused to open his defence in his ongoing trial for alleged terrorism offences, insisting that there is no valid case against him.

Kanu had earlier indicated plans to call witnesses and even applied for a witness summons, requesting additional time to review his case file. However, at the resumed hearing, he informed the court that after studying the file, he found no legitimate charge warranting a defence.

He told the court that he believes the entire trial process is unlawful, hence there is no need to proceed with any defence.

Justice James Omotosho, presiding over the case, directed Kanu to file a written response detailing his stance and serve it on the prosecution. The judge also advised him to consult criminal law experts on the possible legal consequences of his decision.

The case was subsequently adjourned until November 4th, 5th, and 6th for the adoption of final written addresses, depending on whether the court agrees that the evidence and charges so far have failed to establish a case against the defendant — or for Kanu to reconsider and enter his defence.

The Global Defence Consortium representing IPOB leader Nnamdi Kanu has accused the Federal High Court in Abuja and Justice James Omotosho of bias and denial of fair hearing following alleged irregularities during Friday’s court session.

According to a statement by Barrister Onyedikachi Ifedi, Kanu informed the court that his legal team was dismissed only a day earlier and that he could not access his legal files due to DSS restrictions. His request for more time to review the files, the defence argued, was a constitutional right under Section 36(6)(b) of the 1999 Constitution, not a delay tactic.

Kanu also sought to extend his legal and medical consultations from three to five days per week—a request the court granted, though the judge claimed Kanu had wasted earlier opportunities. The defence disputed this, saying it was unfair to force a defendant in a capital case to proceed after only “three hours” of consultation.

The statement further alleged that the DSS continues to bug Kanu’s conversations with his lawyers, violating constitutional provisions and international legal standards. It added that Justice Omotosho’s actions—such as vacating the courtroom during consultations and adjourning when Kanu requested court records—proved a breach of fair hearing and contempt for open justice.

The defence also noted that its applications to bring witnesses from the U.S., Kenya, the U.K., and Ethiopia remain unaddressed, describing it as a deliberate attempt to frustrate the defence.

“These are the facts from today’s proceedings. Don’t let them feed you lies,” the defence concluded.

Nnamdi Kanu Dismisses Legal Team, Defends Himself in Terrorism Trial.

Lead counsel for detained IPOB leader Nnamdi Kanu, Kanu Agabi (SAN), has withdrawn from representing him, stating that Kanu had taken back control of his case.

All the Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) on the defence team also withdrew from the suit — a move Kanu confirmed in court. The IPOB leader told Justice James Omotosho that he would represent himself “for now,” declining the judge’s offer to assign him a lawyer.

Defending himself, Kanu argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to try him. Outside the courtroom, Agabi told reporters, “A number of voices have been defending Nnamdi, and he has decided to conduct his defence by himself. He has the right to do so, we respect that decision and we wish him well going forward.”

Kanu appeared before the Federal High Court, Abuja, on Thursday to open his defence in the terrorism charges filed by the Federal Government. When the case was called, Agabi announced that he and other SANs — Onyechi Ikpeazu, Joseph Akubo, Paul Erokoro, Emeka Etiaba, and one unnamed — were withdrawing from the matter.

Following Kanu’s confirmation of his lawyers’ exit, Justice Omotosho ordered the remaining members of the defence team in court, except the SANs, to vacate the courtroom. He then directed Kanu to proceed with his defence.

Kanu began by contesting the court’s jurisdiction but was overruled. Ikpeazu later informed the court that their withdrawal took effect Thursday morning and requested time for Kanu to “gather his thoughts.” The prosecution did not object, prompting Justice Omotosho to adjourn the case to Friday, October 24, for Kanu to open his defence.

In a motion he personally filed, Kanu said he was ready to begin “pursuant to the order of this honourable court made on October 16, 2025.” He told the court he planned to call 23 witnesses — “ordinary but material witnesses” and “vital and compellable” ones to be summoned under Section 232 of the Evidence Act, 2011.

Nnamdi Kanu Opens Defence, Lists 23 Witnesses Including Wike, Sanwo-Olu and Ex-Military Chiefs.

Detained leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has agreed to open his defence, marking a major turn in his long-running trial.

This comes just hours after protests in parts of Abuja led by Omoyele Sowore, presidential candidate of the African Action Congress (AAC) in the 2023 elections, calling for Kanu’s release.

Kanu had earlier filed a motion challenging the court’s jurisdiction, but in a fresh application on Tuesday, October 21, he informed Justice James Omotosho that he was ready to defend himself, citing a previous court order directing him to begin on October 24, 2025.

He revealed plans to call 23 witnesses divided into two groups—“ordinary but material witnesses” and “vital and compellable witnesses”—to testify under Section 232 of the Evidence Act.

He also requested 90 days to conclude his defence, indicating he may now be representing himself instead of his legal team led by Chief Kanu Agabi (SAN).

Among those he intends to summon as witnesses are former Defence Minister Gen. Theophilus Danjuma (rtd), ex-Army Chief Gen. Tukur Buratai (rtd), Lagos Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu, Imo Governor Hope Uzodinma, FCT Minister Nyesom Wike, Works Minister Dave Umahi, former Abia Governor Okezie Ikpeazu, former Justice Minister Abubakar Malami (SAN), and ex-NIA DG Ahmed Rufai Abubakar.

Kanu said he would personally testify to “deny the allegations” and explain the political context of his actions, assuring the court that he would not waste its time and that “justice must be seen to be done.”

Meanwhile, on the same day, a magistrate court in Abuja ordered the remand of Kanu’s special counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, and 12 others who joined the protests demanding his release. 

They face charges of conspiracy, unlawful assembly, and public disturbance, and will appear in court again on October 24.

Forgery Allegation Deepens PDP Crisis Ahead Of November Convention.

The internal crisis rocking the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has taken a fresh twist after the party’s National Secretary, Samuel Anyanwu, petitioned the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the Department of State Services (DSS), and the Inspector General of Police over an alleged forgery of his signature.

In petitions dated October 15 and submitted on October 16, Anyanwu denied signing the August 29 letter sent to INEC concerning the party’s planned November 15–16 National Convention in Ibadan, Oyo State.

In his letter titled “RE: Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Year 2025 Elective National Convention: Petition Against Forgery and Cloning of My Signature”, Anyanwu insisted that the correspondence purportedly bearing his signature was neither signed nor authorised by him.

He urged the DSS and the police to immediately investigate what he described as a case of forgery capable of undermining the party’s integrity ahead of its convention.

The controversy comes amid a pending suit filed by aggrieved party chieftains seeking to halt the exercise. In suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/2120/25, PDP chairmen from Imo and Abia states, Austin Nwachukwu and Amah Abraham Nnanna, alongside the South-South Zonal Secretary, Turnah Alabah George, accused the Damagum-led National Working Committee of breaching the party’s constitution and internal election rules.

Defendants in the case include INEC, the PDP, Acting National Chairman Umar Damagum, and other senior officials.

At Tuesday’s sitting, the court adjourned proceedings to October 20, after a dispute erupted over who was authorised to represent the PDP in court.

Kamaldeen Ajibade (SAN) and Chris Uche (SAN) both claimed the mandate, prompting Justice James Omotosho to order them to present proof of authorisation. He directed all parties to exchange documents by October 17.

Nnamdi Kanu’s ailment not life-threatening, he’s fit to stand trial – NMA Panel.

The team empanelled by the President of the Nigerian Medical Association, NMA, has said that the ailment complained about by detained self-acclaimed leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu, is not life-threatening.

The medical team was ordered by Justice James Omotosho, midway into Kanu’s terrorism trial before a Federal High Court in Abuja, to ascertain Kanu’s actual health status following conflicting claims on the issue by medical experts engaged by the prosecution and the defence.

In the panel’s report, submitted to the court on October 13 by the prosecution team led by Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), part of which was read in open court during Thursday’s proceedings, it was stated that Kanu’s ailment is not life-threatening.

The team concluded that Kanu is fit to stand trial.

Based on the information contained in the report and in the absence of any objection from lawyers to the parties, Justice Omotosho said the court was convinced that Kanu could proceed with the trial.

Justice Omotosho subsequently granted the defendant six consecutive days, beginning from October 23, to open and close his defence.

The judge granted an oral application by defence lawyer, Kanu Agabi (SAN), that Kanu’s legal team be granted a private consultation opportunity with the defendant outside the premises of the Department of State Services (DSS).

Agabi said the defendant’s legal team was afraid that its consultation with him (Kanu) could be tapped or recorded by the DSS.

Court fixes October 31 for jurisdiction ruling on Dagogo’s suit against Tinubu.

The Federal High Court in Abuja has scheduled October 31, 2025, to deliver its ruling on the issue of jurisdiction in a suit filed by former House of Representatives member Farah Dagogo, challenging President Bola Tinubu’s constitutional authority to suspend democratically elected officials during the declaration of emergency rule in Rivers State.

The suit, No. FHC/PH/CS/50/2025, lists as defendants the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Senate President Godswill Akpabio, the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Speaker of the House of Representatives Tajudeen Abbas, and Vice Admiral Ibok Ete Ibas (Rtd.), who served as the Rivers State Administrator during the emergency rule period.

At Friday’s hearing, counsel to the plaintiff, Babafemi Adegbite, adopted his written arguments supporting the court’s jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

Presiding judge, Justice James Omotosho, after taking submissions from both parties, reserved his ruling and adjourned the matter until October 31.

Speaking to journalists after the proceedings, Adegbite reiterated his client’s stance that President Tinubu exceeded his constitutional powers by suspending elected officials in both the executive and legislative arms of the Rivers State Government.

He said, “Even though they have now been reinstated, the action remains unconstitutional. We need a clear judicial pronouncement to prevent future occurrences.”

Adegbite maintained that the reinstatement of the affected officials does not make the case academic, noting that the core issue revolves around constitutional integrity and the scope of presidential power.

He further distinguished Dagogo’s suit from previous emergency rule cases that were struck out for lack of jurisdiction, insisting that the facts and legal issues in this case are different.