Nnamdi Kanu won’t relocate from Sokoto prison without court order – Family declares

‎The family of imprisoned leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu, has declared that he will not accept relocation from the Sokoto Custodial Centre without a court order.

‎

‎A statement issued on Friday by Prince Emmanuel Kanu on behalf of the Okwu-Kanu Family of Umuahia, Abia State, said the IPOB leader’s sentencing to life imprisonment in Sokoto prison is a core issue in his pending appeal at the Court of Appeal.

‎

‎The family, which said it has observed persistent calls urging Nnamdi Kanu to accept relocation from Sokoto Custodial Centre to Abuja, outside the judicial process, urged his supporters to respect the legal strategy and not undermine the appeal.

‎

‎NewsNnamdi Kanu won’t relocate from Sokoto prison without court order – Family declaresPublished on July 31, 2026By Daniel Chibuike

‎

‎The family of imprisoned leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu, has declared that he will not accept relocation from the Sokoto Custodial Centre without a court order.

‎

‎A statement issued on Friday by Prince Emmanuel Kanu on behalf of the Okwu-Kanu Family of Umuahia, Abia State, said the IPOB leader’s sentencing to life imprisonment in Sokoto prison is a core issue in his pending appeal at the Court of Appeal.

‎

‎The family, which said it has observed persistent calls urging Nnamdi Kanu to accept relocation from Sokoto Custodial Centre to Abuja, outside the judicial process, urged his supporters to respect the legal strategy and not undermine the appeal.

‎

‎The statement said following the calls, it has become necessary to clarify the family’s position and to caution against any course of action that could undermine the pending appeal before the Court of Appeal.

‎

‎Noting that Nnamdi Kanu is appearing pro se (in person) before the Court of Appeal in the appeal against his conviction, the family said the development imposes a heightened duty on the court to ensure that his rights are protected and that he is not taken advantage of by the prosecution.

‎

‎It also means that any course of action that could be construed as abandoning a ground of appeal — such as voluntarily leaving Sokoto Custodial Centre — would be particularly damaging to his case. The Kanu family is committed to ensuring that his pro se status does not result in any inadvertent waiver of his constitutional rights.

‎

‎“On 20 November 2025, Justice J.K. Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, convicted Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and sentenced him to life imprisonment. At page 118 of the judgment, the trial judge made a finding that our son “hates the North with a passion,” and thereafter ordered that he serve his sentence at the Sokoto Custodial Centre — the seat of the Caliphate, the heart of the geographical North.

‎

‎“The legal team submits that the sequence of findings and orders gives rise to a compelling appearance of bias, and that this issue has been squarely placed before the Court of Appeal as a ground for setting aside the conviction. The Sokoto sentencing is not a mere administrative detail; it is a substantive ground of appeal that the legal team contends constitutes significant evidence in support of the appeal on judicial bias and fair hearing,” the family said.

‎

‎According to the statement, Kanu’s legal team contends that the Sokoto sentencing, standing alone and when considered together with the other 14 independent grounds of appeal, warrants setting aside the conviction.

‎

‎It noted that the issue has been fully briefed and is now awaiting determination by the Court of Appeal, adding that Kanu, while appearing for himself, has personally argued the issues and will not allow any course of action that could undermine them.

‎

‎“The matter is sub judice, it must be decided by the Court of Appeal, which is the proper forum to decide whether the Sokoto sentencing was lawful, whether it constituted bias, and whether it should be quashed.

‎

‎“Any voluntary relocation outside the judicial process could be argued by the Respondent as an abandonment of this ground of appeal. The legal team considers it prudent not to create that risk. The appeal must be allowed to run its full course, and the Sokoto sentencing — which the legal team believes is the most visible manifestation of bias in the entire trial – must be adjudicated by the Court of Appeal.

‎

‎“Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, appearing pro se, has invested considerable time and legal reasoning in preparing the appeal. The Kanu family will not allow that effort to be undermined by extra-judicial interventions,” the statement added.

‎

‎The family disclosed that when Kanu earlier brought a motion for relocation before the Abuja Federal High Court presided by Justice James Omotosho, the court declined to hear the motion on its merits and instead held that the government be put on notice.

‎

‎It added that Justice Omotosho then declined to allow Kanu to attend the hearing, instead appointing a lawyer from the Legal Aid Counsel to represent him. “The appointed counsel withdrew, and the motion was subsequently struck out,” the family explained.

‎

‎It disclosed that British consular staff engaged Kanu regarding a possible intervention to move him to Abuja but he rejected that offer, opting for the Court of Appeal to decide.

‎

‎The family added, “The present issue concerns a matter pending before the Nigerian courts. Any change to Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s place of custody should occur through lawful judicial process rather than executive or diplomatic intervention. The legal team considers it essential that this matter be resolved by the Court of Appeal, where the legal issues have been fully argued, rather than through extra-judicial means that could undermine the pending appeal.

‎

‎“Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, appearing pro se, has made it clear that he will not accept any intervention that bypasses the judicial process. He respects the courts and expects the courts to respect the law. The Court of Appeal will decide; no one else.

‎

‎“The Kanu family respectfully urges all well-meaning persons to desist from any action or advocacy that could compromise the legal strategy, which has been carefully developed over many months and which the legal team believes is the surest path to securing his freedom.”

‎