The Federal High Court has declined to issue the production warrant that would formally oblige Sokoto Prison to bring Mazi Nnamdi Kanu to Abuja. The court had issued a summons. It called for him to appear on 28 November 2025. This appearance is for the settlement of the record of an appeal he filed before the judgment of 20 November.
Kanu’s special counsel Barrister Aloy Ejimakor disclosed this on Wednesday in a post on his X (formerly Twitter) account. In the post, he attached a copy of the summons requiring the terrorism convict’s presence.
The refusal, if sustained, will make Kanu’s physical attendance impossible. His lawyer believes it will imperil Kanu’s constitutional right to a fair hearing.
This development must be treated as more than a procedural hiccup. It sits at the intersection of three facts that together amount to a constitutional crisis.
First, Kanu was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment on 20 November 2025 after a long and fractious court process.
Second, the history of his arrest and the litigation around his extradition have already produced conflicting high court outcomes. These outcomes include a Court of Appeal discharge in October 2022. Additionally, there was a Supreme Court reversal in December 2023 that restored the prosecutions.
Third, and most promptly, the court which has summoned him says it will not order the only legal mechanism. This mechanism would allow him to be produced for the appellate record settling exercise.
A production warrant is not a discretionary luxury. It is the statutory device that compels a custodial authority to bring a prisoner before a court for hearing. It is also used for the settlement of appeal records.
The Prisons Act and the Administration of Criminal Justice Act recognise this duty. They empower courts to order production in proper form.
In ordinary practice a production warrant is issued routinely when an inmate in remote custody is required in court.
The refusal to make such an order in a case of high national salience raises immediate questions. These questions concern fairness and equality before the law.
Why the refusal matters
The right to a fair hearing is guaranteed in Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution. That guarantee is not a rhetorical flourish.
It requires that an accused person be given adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence. They must also have the opportunity to communicate with counsel of their choice. The international instruments to which Nigeria is a party echo this requirement.
Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights insists on providing adequate time and facilities. These are necessary to prepare a defense and to communicate with counsel.
The African Charter holds parallel guarantees. Denying physical access to the court undermines those protections. Making access practically impossible by incarcerating a defendant hundreds of kilometres away also strikes at the core of those protections.
Practical obstacles that amount to legal prejudice
Sokoto lies at a great remove from Abuja. Depending on the route and mode of travel, the driving distance is commonly reported at roughly 600 to 660 kilometres. The journey can take the better part of a working day.
By contrast, Suleja and Keffi are two correctional facilities referenced by Ejimakor as closer alternatives. They are measured in tens of kilometres from Abuja. These facilities offer immediate practical access for both lawyers and the court.
That difference in distance matters. This is especially true where the timetable for an appeal is tight. Counsel must consult with a client and file time-sensitive processes.
The contrast is stark and quintesssentially dispositive of whether an accused has meaningful access to appellate processes.
The legal argument will not stand or fall on geography alone. It will depend on whether the state has placed avoidable practical impediments in the way of appellate rights. This is where the record of Kanu’s detention and movement is legally and politically combustible.
His return to Nigeria in 2021 from Kenya was contested as an unlawful extraordinary rendition. The Court of Appeal in October 2022 held that the rendition was unlawful and discharged him.
That ruling was later stayed. The Supreme Court then reversed the ruling. The Court held that the discharge did not amount to an acquittal. Thus, it would not bar further prosecution.
The oscillation between courts has made Kanu’s procedural posture uniquely fragile. This has heightened the obligation on the state and the judiciary. They must remove any avoidable obstacles to his access to due process.
The practical impact on counsel and case strategy
Ejimakor’s public account is candid. He says the transfer of Kanu to Sokoto has made it impossible to prepare the necessary appellate materials. It is difficult to file them within reasonable time without close access.
He also notes that Kanu has changed counsel and at times represented himself, complicating normal modes of communication.
The constitutional minimum requires the court to act proactively. If logistics will impair preparation, the court must secure the accused’s access to counsel. The court itself must also be accessible.
Refusing a production warrant after giving a summons gives the appearance of form without substance.
What this portends for rule of law
There is a principle at stake broader than one man’s convenience or liberty. If a court summons a defendant, it must order his production from lawful custody. Failing to do so risks reducing constitutional guarantees to symbolic rhetoric.
Ordinary citizens will reasonably ask whether justice is equally administered when procedural devices are withheld in politically sensitive cases.
International human rights bodies have repeatedly emphasised that security concerns do not excuse the denial of basic trial guarantees.
Nigeria’s courts must therefore show, not merely assert, that any decision to withhold production is legally necessary, proportionate and supported by evidence.
Comparative context and cautionary precedent
Across jurisdictions courts exercise discretion in the location of custody for high security detainees. The acceptable exercise of that discretion has two limits.
First the state must not use remoteness to make access to justice illusory. Second the court must guarantee that the choice of facility is demonstrably necessary for security. It should not be merely convenient for the custodial authority.
When governments create barriers with custody locations, they erode institutional legitimacy over time. Nigeria’s recent jurisprudence on Kanu already shows how quickly such costs accumulate.
What should the court and the state do now
A common sense, legally sound and reputationally prudent course is clear. The Federal High Court should issue the production warrant. Alternatively, it should give a reasoned, written order explaining why it will not do so. The order should also detail what other measures it will put in place to guarantee Kanu’s access to counsel and to the appellate record.
If security is the concern, those measures must be limited in scope and proportionate and must themselves be judicially supervised.
The Attorney General should consider transferring Kanu to a centre near Abuja. The custodial authorities should also consider this while the appellate processes are under way.
That modest step would preserve the state’s legitimate security interests. It would also remove the avoidable contention. This contention is now feeding domestic and international criticism.
In conclusion, this dispute is not only about one man or one legal form. It tests whether constitutional guarantees in Nigeria survive contact with the machinery of state. A court that summons and then declines to allow physical attendance has a heavy burden to discharge.
The judiciary will not survive long in the eyes of a sceptical public. This will happen if procedures designed to guarantee access to justice are allowed to calcify into instruments of exclusion.
The right to appeal and the right to a fair hearing are not abstract luxuries. They are the backbone of any claim that a state acts under law and not whim.
Additional reporting by Osaigbovo Okungbowa, Senior Political Correspondent.
Follow us on our broadcast channels today!
- WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VawZ8TbDDmFT1a1Syg46
- Telegram: https://t.me/atlanticpostchannel
- Facebook: https://www.messenger.com/channel/atlanticpostng
