The family of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has said he will not accept any relocation from the Sokoto Custodial Centre unless it is authorised by a court.
Naijaonpoint reports that the family said Kanu’s continued detention in Sokoto formed a major part of his pending appeal before the Court of Appeal and warned that an extra-judicial transfer could weaken his case.
The position was contained in a statement issued on Friday by Prince Emmanuel Kanu on behalf of the Okwu-Kanu family of Umuahia, Abia State.
According to the family, the statement became necessary following repeated calls for the IPOB leader to accept a transfer from Sokoto to Abuja outside the judicial process.
The family urged Kanu’s supporters and other concerned persons to respect the legal strategy being pursued in the appeal against his conviction.
It said Kanu was representing himself before the Court of Appeal and that any step capable of being interpreted as abandoning one of his grounds of appeal could be damaging.
The statement read, “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.”
The family added that Kanu’s decision to represent himself imposed a greater responsibility on the court to protect his rights and ensure that he was not disadvantaged.
Sokoto Detention Cited In Appeal
The statement recalled that Justice J.K. Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, convicted Kanu on November 20, 2025, and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
The family alleged that the judge, in his judgment, stated that Kanu “hates the North with a passion” before ordering that he serve his sentence at the Sokoto Custodial Centre.
It said Kanu’s legal team had raised the decision as evidence supporting its allegation of judicial bias and denial of fair hearing.
“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, the issue formed part of 15 grounds filed before the appellate court in a bid to overturn the conviction.
The family maintained that only the Court of Appeal should determine whether Kanu’s detention in Sokoto was lawful and whether the decision amounted to bias.
“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,” the statement added.
It warned that the prosecution could rely on any voluntary relocation to argue that Kanu had abandoned that aspect of his appeal.
“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 family said.
It added that Kanu had devoted considerable time to preparing and arguing the appeal and would not allow external interventions to undermine the process.
Previous Relocation Application Struck Out
The family also said Kanu had earlier filed an application before the Federal High Court in Abuja seeking relocation.
According to the statement, the court did not determine the application on its merits but directed that the Federal Government be placed on notice.
The family alleged that Kanu was later prevented from attending the hearing and that a lawyer from the Legal Aid Council was appointed to represent him.
It said the lawyer subsequently withdrew from the matter, after which the application was struck out.
The family further disclosed that British consular officials had discussed a possible intervention to facilitate Kanu’s transfer to Abuja, but he rejected the proposal.
It said the IPOB leader preferred to allow the Court of Appeal to determine the issue.
The statement said, “Any change to Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s place of custody should occur through lawful judicial process rather than executive or diplomatic intervention.
“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 family appealed to Kanu’s supporters and other interested parties to avoid actions or public advocacy that could jeopardise the appeal.
It said the legal strategy had been developed over several months and remained, in its view, the best route towards securing his release.
