Court Rejects Application to Transfer Nnamdi Kanu for Appeal Procedures

Federal High Court in Abuja has declined a request to authorize the transfer of the detained IPOB leader, Nnamdi Kanu, from Sokoto to the nation’s capital for the settlement of his appeal records. The decision has triggered concerns within his legal camp, as the refusal may obstruct his ability to pursue his appeal following his recent conviction. According to Intelregion

The court did not issue the production warrant required for prison authorities to transport Kanu from his Sokoto custodial centre to Abuja. This warrant is a mandatory document for moving any inmate across state lines for court-related appearances.

Kanu was earlier scheduled to appear before the Abuja registry on 28 November 2025 to settle his appeal records an essential step in the appellate process following his life-sentence conviction for terrorism-related offences.

His family insists that without physical appearance or a valid alternative provided by the court, the legal process risks being stalled.

Kanu’s younger brother, Prince Emmanuel Kanu, expressed strong dissatisfaction, saying:

“The registrar fixed a date for him to appear, but without a production warrant, Sokoto Prison cannot move him. This is a clear obstruction.”

READ ALSO :

• Nnamdi Kanu Can Be Freed Through Amnesty If He Repents, Says Sheikh Gumi

• US Intelligence to Help Protect Nigerian Civilians as Attacks Intensify

• Bauchi Students Sent Home as State Shuts Schools Over Rising Insecurity

• DSS Transfers IPOB Leader Nnamdi Kanu to Sokoto Prison After Life Sentence

Court Decision Sparks Legal on Nnamdi Kanu

The refusal has intensified the debate on whether Kanu is being allowed fair access to justice. Legal experts note that settlement of appeal records must take place at the registry of the trial court, and failure to appear may technically jeopardise the appeal.

Human-rights advocates also argue that keeping Kanu in Sokoto far from Abuja where his legal team operates creates unnecessary logistical hurdles.

Some lawyers criticised the relocation as “insensitive and obstructive,” insisting that every defendant, regardless of case sensitivity, must have unhindered access to fair legal representation.

A legal analyst quoted in Vanguard commented:

“When a court refuses a transfer needed for an appeal process, it raises real questions about the transparency of the justice system.”

The concerns are heightened by the fact that appeal timelines are often strict. If Kanu cannot settle the records, the appeal may not progress to the appellate court, which could effectively trap the case at the trial-court level.

Uncertain Road Ahead for Kanu’s Appeal

With the court declining to sign the transfer warrant, Kanu’s legal team must now explore alternate legal channels to keep the appeal alive.

Whether a fresh application for transfer will be filed or if the team will seek permission for remote settlement remains uncertain.

Family members continued to appeal for fairness, stressing that Kanu’s right to appeal should not be frustrated by procedural delays.

In the words of Prince Emmanuel:

“Justice should be accessible. Bureaucracy must not stand in the way.”

As the situation develops, all eyes remain on the judiciary to determine whether the appeal process will move forward or become entangled in avoidable technicalities.