Fresh Twist: Kanu Family Declares He Won’t Leave Sokoto Prison Without Court Approval

The family of detained Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Nnamdi Kanu, has insisted that he will not accept any transfer from the Sokoto Custodial Centre unless it is ordered by a competent court.

In a statement issued on Friday by Prince Emmanuel Kanu on behalf of the Okwu-Kanu family of Umuahia, Abia State, the family said Kanu’s continued detention in Sokoto is a central issue in his pending appeal and warned that accepting a transfer outside the judicial process could undermine his legal case.

The family explained that the statement became necessary following repeated calls by supporters and other stakeholders urging the IPOB leader to consent to a relocation from Sokoto to Abuja through non-judicial means.

According to the statement, Kanu, who is representing himself before the Court of Appeal, is determined not to take any action that could be interpreted as abandoning any of the grounds contained in his appeal.

The family stressed that voluntarily leaving the Sokoto Custodial Centre without a court order could weaken arguments challenging the legality of his detention there and allegations of judicial bias.

“Our position is that any relocation outside the judicial process could be construed as abandoning one of the grounds of appeal. We are committed to ensuring that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s constitutional rights are fully protected throughout the proceedings,” the statement said.

Sokoto Detention Part of Appeal

The family recalled that Justice J.K. Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, convicted Kanu on November 20, 2025, sentencing him to life imprisonment and ordering that he serve the sentence at the Sokoto Custodial Centre.

According to the family, the decision to designate Sokoto as his place of incarceration forms one of the 15 grounds of appeal currently before the Court of Appeal.

It argued that the issue is not merely administrative but a substantive aspect of the appeal, which challenges the fairness of the trial and alleges judicial bias.

The family maintained that only the Court of Appeal has the authority to determine whether the order committing Kanu to Sokoto was lawful and whether it should be set aside.

It also cautioned that the prosecution could interpret any voluntary transfer outside the judicial process as evidence that Kanu had abandoned that aspect of his appeal.

Previous Relocation Bid

The statement further disclosed that Kanu had previously applied before the Federal High Court for a transfer from Sokoto, but the application was never determined on its merits.

According to the family, the court directed that the Federal Government be put on notice, after which Kanu was allegedly prevented from attending the hearing.

It added that a lawyer from the Legal Aid Council was appointed to represent him but later withdrew from the case, leading to the application being struck out.

The family also revealed that British consular officials had explored the possibility of facilitating Kanu’s transfer to Abuja, but he declined the proposal, insisting that any change in his place of detention must come through the courts.

Reaffirming its position, the family urged Kanu’s supporters to refrain from actions or public campaigns that could jeopardise the appeal, maintaining that the legal strategy adopted by his team remains the most appropriate path toward challenging his conviction.