Nnamdi Kanu files motion to set aside Supreme Court judgment remitting trial to FHC
Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has filed a motion asking the Supreme Court to set aside its December 15, 2023, judgment which remitted his trial back to the Federal High Court.
The apex court had, in the verdict in suit number SC/CR/1361/2022, remitted Kanu’s terrorism trial to the Federal High Court for continued prosecution after the Court of Appeal acquitted the agitator in a judgment delivered on October 13, 2022.
However, in a motion filed on November 6, 2025, Kanu is asking the Supreme Court to set aside the December 15, 2023, judgment for want of jurisdiction.
The IPOB leader also argued that the judgment was predicated on statutes that had ceased to exist in law.
The motion, brought pursuant to Section 6(6)(A) of the Constitution, is between Kanu, respondent/applicant appearing in person, and the Federal Government of Nigeria, appellant/respondent.
Among the reliefs sought in the motion is an order extending the time within which the applicant (Kanu) may seek leave to apply for an order for review of the December 15, 2023, judgment.
Kanu also asked the Supreme Court to grant him leave to apply for an order reviewing the said December 15, 2023, judgment, as well as an order extending the time within which he may file the application for review of the judgment.
Stating the grounds for the application, Kanu explained in the motion that by reason of his detention in the custody of the Department of State Services (DSS) and the previous external conduct of his defence, he was not able to review the December 15, 2023, judgment until he recently took charge of his case.
According to him, he obtained the complete case file of his prosecution on October 26, 2025.
“Upon a meticulous examination of the record, the applicant discovered, with profound juridical concern, that the judgment of this Honourable Court of 15 December 2023 was delivered per incuriam, having been predicated on statutes which, at the material time, had ceased to exist in law. The decision, though solemn in pronouncement, was therefore made sub silentio of the extant Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 and stands in patent violation of Section 36(12) of the Constitution and Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011,” he added.
Kanu explained that upon this discovery, he immediately filed an application for enlargement of time to file a motion to set aside the judgment. He noted that the interlude between the December 15, 2023, judgment and the instant application was not due to his own making.
“The complaint now raised touches the very root of jurisdiction, a domain to which time and technicality pay no homage. The equitable discretion of this Honourable Court is therefore humbly invited to extend the time ex debito justitiae, for the correction of a manifest nullity and the restoration of constitutional order,” the motion stated.
In an affidavit in support of the motion, Kanu’s younger brother, Prince Emmanuel Kanu, noted that since the delivery of the December 15, 2023, Supreme Court judgment, the IPOB leader had remained in detention under conditions that restricted his access to counsel, case materials, and the certified record of proceedings.
Prince Emmanuel added that on or about October 21, 2025, Kanu resolved to assume control of his case in order to ensure a thorough personal review and pursue appropriate redress where necessary.
He added that a denial of the motion for additional time to file an application to set aside the December 15, 2023, judgment would “perpetuate a palpable miscarriage of justice and an enduring stain upon judicial regularity.”
Justice James Omotosho of the Abuja Federal High Court has fixed November 20, 2025, to deliver judgment in Kanu’s trial.
DAILY POST reports that shortly after Justice Omotosho set the date for judgment in the terrorism trial, Kanu declared that he cannot be convicted under a non-existent law.
Kanu and his defence team have been arguing that the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act 2013, under which he was charged, had been repealed by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022.
Also, the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) had denied reports that Kanu forfeited his right to defence in the ongoing terrorism trial.
In a statement released and signed by its spokesperson, Emma Powerful, IPOB said reports that Kanu waived his right to defence were false and misleading. According to the group, the reports do not reflect the actual proceedings in court. It maintained that Kanu did not abandon his right to defend himself but instead has continued to insist on a fair and lawful trial.
“Let the truth be clear: Mazi Nnamdi Kanu has not forfeited anything. What is happening in court has raised serious legal questions that need to be addressed within the limits of the law,” IPOB said in the statement.
IPOB reaffirmed its support for Kanu’s position in court and appealed for calm among its members and the general public. The group emphasized that the matter should be resolved in accordance with constitutional provisions and established legal standards.