A lawyer from the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria (LACON), Demdoo Asan, on Tuesday, withdrew his appearance from a matter brought to court by the convicted leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu. 

Mr Asan told Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, that he sought to withdraw from the case following Mr Kanu’s alleged insistence on dictating to the council on how his motion ex-parte filed before the judge should be taken.

Mr Omotosho also struck out the motion ex parte for being incompetent.

Mr Kanu, who was convicted on terrorism offences, had sought “an order compelling the complainant (federal government) and/or the Nigerian Correctional Service (NCoS) to forthwith transfer him from the Sokoto Correctional Facility to a custodial facility within the jurisdiction of this honourable court.”

Alternately, Mr Kanu sought an order transferring him to the court’s “immediate environs, such as the Suleja or the Keffi Custodial Centre, for the purpose of enabling the applicant (Kanu) to effectively prosecute his constitutionally guaranteed right of appeal.”

Mr Omotosho on December 8, 2025 held that Mr Kanu’s application, moved by Mr Asan, cannot be granted through an ex parte motion but through a motion on notice.

The judge held that the respondents, the federal government and NCoS, ought to be put on notice for them to respond appropriately in the interest of justice before the request could be granted.

When the matter was called on Monday, the judge asked the registrar to confirm the service of the process and hearing notice on the respondents (FG and NCos).

The registrar told the court that there was no proof of service of the motion on notice and hearing notice on the respondents.

Mr Asan, who appeared for Mr Kanu, then explained that though on the last adjourned date, the court gave a directive, he said he had only been in touch with Mr Kanu’s relatives through telephone calls.

“I have not seen them since they left court that day. All efforts to get them to come into the office so that they could sign as deponents or the motion to be filed in court proved abortive.

“They kept saying they’d get back to me, and that wasn’t done. My lord, that has been the reason counsel could not file the motion on notice because counsel cannot depose to that affidavit personally,” he said.

The lawyer said the second reason was that Mr Kanu had sought to dictate to him on what to do.

“My lord, another reason counsel is before this court today is that the applicant (Kanu) wants to dictate the tone of counsel in this matter. The applicant wants to give counsel a write-up of what to say in the matter before the court.

“My lord, the applicant (Kanu) has not given counsel a free hand to take on this matter as counsel before the Supreme Court of Nigeria. My Lord, the applicant wants to control the pace of the matter and counsel from the custodial centre in Sokoto; counsel has also taken that up with the counsel and discussed with the directors.

“And the directive of the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria is that we cannot be dictated to. If a matter has been handed over to the council, we will do the matter as we seek it as lawyers. If the applicant is not comfortable with the conduct and the prosecution of the Legal Aid Council, the applicant can seek legal service somewhere else,” he said.

Mr Asan, who invoked Order 50, Rule 1 of the Federal High Court Rules, therefore, sought the permission of the court to withdraw his appearance from Mr Kanu’s matter.

Mr Omotosho, therefore, granted Mr Asan and the council the permission to withdraw from representing Mr Kanu.

“I think I’m going to grant leave for the counsel from the legal aid and the legal aid council generally to withdraw its appearance and representation on behalf of the convict/applicant, as the professional ethics of this profession must be guided and protected.

“I commend the counsel for taking the right direction in order to safeguard our ethics. Based on this, the leave is granted to the counsel and the legal aid to withdraw its appearance on behalf of the defendant,” he ruled.

The judge then asked Mr Asan who filed the ex parte motion, and the lawyer said it was Mr Kanu himself, adding that the LACON had not filed any application before the court.

Mr Omotosho held that the ex parte motion before the court was incompetent, the applicant having failed to convert it to a motion on notice as directed by the court.

He stated, “In respect of the application before this court, it has to do with an application that was brought incompetently, as per seeking the movements of the convict from where he is presently kept.

“The application is not competent. However, in the interest of justice, when it came up, the court gave a hint and urged that that same be converted, in other words, telling the applicant to go and file a motion on notice.

“The applicant having not filed the motion on notice today, January 27, there is no application for determination before this court. It is based on this that the motion ex parte is struck out, as there is nothing to be determined. ”

(NAN)