The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja has struck out the appeal filed by the leader of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, who was recently convicted on terrorism charges, ruling that the case lacked merit and had become academic.
Appeal Against Rights Violations
Kanu’s appeal challenged alleged breaches of his fundamental rights — including human dignity, access to quality medical care, and freedom of religion — during his detention under the custody of the Department of State Services (DSS). The defendants in the appeal were the DSS (and its Director-General) and the Attorney‑General of the Federation (AGF).
Panel’s Ruling: Appeal Moot After Conviction
A three-member panel, led by Boloukuromo Ugo, held that since Kanu was convicted on 20 November 2025 by a Federal High Court and has since been remanded at a correctional facility, the issues raised in his appeal no longer have legal relevance. The court noted that his request to be transferred from DSS custody to Kuje prison was rendered irrelevant by his conviction and remand at Sokoto Correctional Centre — the facility where he is currently held.
Accordingly, the Court struck out the appeal for lack of merit.
Background to the Case
On 20 November 2025, Kanu was found guilty by a Federal High Court, which held the prosecution had established the elements of terrorism offences beyond reasonable doubt. He was subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment.
Kanu had originally filed his fundamental rights suit in December 2021 (Case No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1585/2021), alleging serious violations — including prolonged solitary confinement, denial of access to his own lawyer and doctor, insufficient medical attention, denial of religious practice, and refusal to allow a change of clothes while in DSS custody.
However, those allegations were dismissed by the trial court (then-Judge Taiwo Taiwo), which found that Kanu had failed to prove his claims.
What This Means
With the appeal now dismissed, the legal challenge to Kanu’s detention conditions and treatment — as argued in the rights-violation lawsuit — is closed for now. The Court of Appeal’s ruling affirms the verdict of the lower court and closes off further recourse on those specific fundamental-rights claims under the current appeal.
Observers say the decision underscores how a convict’s rights-based challenges may become redundant — or “academic” — once conviction and remand have intervened.