Justice James Kolawole Omotosho of the Federal high court Abuja, on Tuesday, January 27, 2026, struck out an ex-parte motion filed by the convicted leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, seeking his transfer from the Sokoto correctional facility.
This was as the legal representative of Kanu, Demdoo Asan, a senior legal officer at the Legal Aid Council, informed the court of his intention to withdraw from the matter, citing irreconcilable differences.
Asan said that since the last adjourned date, he had been on constant telephone communication with Kanu’s relatives, adding that despite several phone calls and promises, Kanu’s relatives failed to show up at his office to depose to the application.
The legal representatives further told the court that Kanu wanted to dictate the tune of the matter and control what he, as counsel, would say in court
In the words of Asan; “He wants to write down what I would say while in court. But, as an officer of the court, I can’t in good faith accept that”.
Asan also said that he consulted with his superiors adding that they shared the same sentiment, stressing that, as officers of the court, when a matter comes to them, they will handle the matter as the they deem fit, else the applicant can seek legal assistance elsewhere.
Accordingly, the counsel invoked Order 50, Rule 1 of the Federal High Court, seeking to withdraw from the matter.
In his ruling, Justice Omotosho commended the counsel for upholding the dignity of the court and declared that having listened to counsel from the Legal Aid Council, he will grant leave for the counsel and the Legal Aid Council generally, to withdraw from representing the defendant convict.
Justice Omotosho also held that the motion was incompetent.
However, in the interest of justice and fairness, the court had directed that other parties involved in the matter be served on notice.
Justice Omotosho said; “Since the last court sitting of December 8, 2025, until today 27th January, there is no proof of service before this court”.
The Court accordingly, ordered that the motion ex-parte be struck out for lacking competence.
