The detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has filed a new motion before the Federal High Court in Abuja, asking the court to strike out all charges against him and order his immediate release.
In the new court document obtained by SaharaReporters on Friday morning, the motion is titled “Motion on Notice and Written Address in Support” and dated 30th of October, 2025.
Kanu, who is representing himself in court, told the trial judge that there is “no charge or counts cognisable within the corpus juris of the Federal Republic of Nigeria” against him, insisting that the charges are “a nullity ab initio for want of any extant legal foundation.”
The document, filed pursuant to several constitutional and statutory provisions, including Sections 1(3), 6(6)(b), and 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, the Evidence Act 2011, and the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, forms part of Kanu’s continued legal challenge against his ongoing prosecution by the Nigerian government.
Kanu asked the court to make “an order striking out in its entirety the purported charge as it fails to constitute any offence known to law,” noting that the prosecution had relied on “repealed and non-existent laws—namely the Customs and Excise Management Act (CEMA), Cap C45, LFN 2004, repealed by Section 281(1) of the Nigeria Customs Service Act 2023, and the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, repealed by Section 97 of the TPPA 2022.”
He argued that the repealed statutes “vitiate the charge’s legal foundation and offend the principle of legality enshrined in Section 36(12) of the Constitution.”
Kanu also urged the court to declare that “there exists no lawful or constitutional basis for his continued trial or detention in the absence of a cognisable charge under any extant law of Nigeria.”
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in FRN v. Kanu (SC/CR/1361/2022), the IPOB leader reminded the trial court that the apex court had directed lower courts to “take judicial notice under Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011 of non-extant statutes,” stressing that failure to do so “renders all proceedings void ab initio, as non-compliance with a superior court’s pronouncement is a constitutional violation.”
