The family of detained Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Nnamdi Kanu, has declared that he will not accept any transfer from the Sokoto Custodial Centre unless it is authorised by a competent court, insisting that his continued detention in Sokoto forms a key part of his pending appeal against his conviction.

40-Year-Old Segun Aina Becomes Youngest JAMB Registrar

In a statement issued on Friday by Prince Emmanuel Kanu on behalf of the Okwu-Kanu family of Umuahia, Abia State, the family said recent calls for Kanu to accept an administrative transfer to Abuja outside the judicial process could undermine his legal strategy. According to the statement, Kanu, who is representing himself before the Court of Appeal, believes that voluntarily leaving the Sokoto facility could be interpreted as abandoning one of the 15 grounds of appeal challenging his conviction. “Any voluntary relocation outside the judicial process could be argued by the respondent as an abandonment of this ground of appeal,” the family stated.

The family recalled that Justice J.K. Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, sentenced Kanu to life imprisonment on November 20, 2025, and ordered that he serve his sentence at the Sokoto Custodial Centre. It argued that the decision to transfer him to Sokoto is one of the central issues being challenged before the Court of Appeal as evidence of alleged judicial bias and denial of fair hearing. The family maintained that only the appellate court has the authority to determine the legality of the detention location and whether it affected Kanu’s constitutional rights.

The statement further disclosed that an earlier application seeking Kanu’s relocation was struck out after he was allegedly prevented from attending the hearing, adding that he also rejected a reported proposal by British consular officials to facilitate an executive transfer to Abuja. Reaffirming confidence in the judicial process, the family urged Kanu’s supporters to avoid actions that could jeopardise the appeal, insisting that any change in his place of detention must come through a lawful court order rather than executive or diplomatic intervention.