Barrister Aloy Ejimakor, Special Counsel to the imprisoned leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has dismissed speculations surrounding the appeal process of the imprisonment of the IPOB leader, insisting that the case is progressing strictly in line with legal procedures.
In a statement issued on Wednesday, April 8, 2026, Ejimakor said, “As already known, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s Notice (and Grounds) of Appeal was filed in February 2026. This is the first and most important step that activated the appeal.”
Providing a detailed breakdown of the next stages, the lawyer provided what he described as the simplified sequence of what happens next until the appeal is fully heard and decided.
He began with the compilation of records, stating, “Compilation and Transmission of the Record of Appeal: The Registrar of the trial court (Federal High Court, Abuja) must compile the complete ‘Record of Appeal.’
“This includes the charge sheet, all court proceedings, exhibits, rulings, the judgment, and the sentence.”
According to him, both parties are involved in settling the records.
“Parties (Mazi Nnadi Kanu’s lawyers and the prosecution) are usually invited to ‘settle’ the Record (agree on what documents go in). For ‘terrorism-related’ cases, the Practice Direction fast-tracks this.
“So, the Registrar has a short window to finalise and transmit the Record to the Court of Appeal Registry. This has been done.”
He further clarified that the next phase involves the submission of legal arguments by both sides.
“Next is filing of Briefs of Argument (once the Record is received), whereby Appellant’s Brief (Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s side) must file the Brief (usually voluminous – tens of pages) within 45 days of receiving the Record.”
Describing the significance of the briefs, Ejimakor said, “This is the written argument setting out the legal arguments on the 22 grounds of appeal and why the conviction should be quashed.”
He added, “Upon filing and receipt of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s Brief, the Respondent (the Federal Government) must then file its own Respondent’s Brief within 30 days after being served with Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s Brief; and if necessary, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s lawyers may file a short Reply Brief within 14 days (if the prosecution raised new points worth a response).
“Briefs are thus the main documents the Court of Appeal will read; oral argument at the hearing only clarifies them.”
On the hearing stage, the lawyer explained, “Once all Briefs are filed, the Court of Appeal Registry lists the matter for hearing. A date is fixed, and parties are notified.”
He continued, “At the hearing, lawyers for both sides shall present oral arguments. The three-man panel of Justices of the Court of Appeal (not the whole court) listens and may ask questions and take notes. For ‘terrorism-related’ appeals, the Court often gives priority to speed up the process.”
Ejimakor stressed that no fresh evidence would be entertained at this stage.
“To be clear, no oral testimony or evidence (such as was done in the High Court) will be allowed.”
He said the court would then reserve judgment, noting, “After the hearing, the Court reserves a date for judgment (usually for a few weeks, sometimes months, but not exceeding 90 days).”
Outlining possible outcomes, he stated, “On the judgment day, the Court will do one of the following: Allow the appeal (quash the conviction and sentence and discharge/acquit Mazi Nnamdi Kanu), or Dismiss the appeal (uphold the conviction and sentence), or Order a retrial (which returns Mazi Nnamdi Kanu to unconvicted status and gives him another shot).”
According to him, “The judgment is delivered in open court and becomes the final decision of the Court of Appeal unless there is a further appeal to the Supreme Court.”
Ejimakor also addressed timelines and public expectations, saying, “Key points to note: The entire process (from Record to judgment) normally takes several months, but ‘terrorism-related’ cases under the Practice Directions are expected to move faster.”
He added that legal motions could still arise during the process.
“Interim applications can be brought at any time (e.g., bail pending appeal, amendment of grounds, or accelerated hearing).”
Reiterating that the appeal is already underway, he said, “It is noteworthy that the appeal is already ‘live’ – the filing of the Notice in February 2026 started the clock.”
He continued, “The next visible milestone is the transmission of the Record of Appeal (which has been done), followed by the exchange of Briefs, which is in process.”
Cautioning against misinformation, Ejimakor urged the public to focus on facts.
“People should therefore focus on these clear, sequential stages rather than daily rumors or believing that the appeal process will follow the same pattern and procedure seen in the High Court before Justice Omotosho.”
He concluded, “This is the standard, transparent roadmap laid down by Nigerian law, and Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s appeal cannot be any different. So, the appeal is progressing exactly as the rules require, one procedural step at a time.”
In January 2026, the Federal High Court in Abuja dismissed an ex parte application filed by the imprisoned leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, seeking his transfer from the Sokoto Correctional Facility.
Justice James Omotosho dismissed the application after Kanu’s lawyer announced his withdrawal from the case.
Kanu’s lawyer, Demdoo Asan, a senior legal officer with the Legal Aid Council, at the resumed hearing of the application on Tuesday, informed the court of his decision to step aside from the matter, citing irreconcilable differences between him and the applicant.
Asan told the court that since the last adjourned date, he had maintained regular telephone communication with Kanu’s relatives, who were expected to visit the Legal Aid Council office to depose to the application.
However, he said they failed to do so despite repeated calls and assurances, according to Channels Television.
Asan further disclosed that Kanu had attempted to dictate how the case should be conducted in court, including insisting on scripting what counsel would say during proceedings.
He said such conduct was unacceptable and incompatible with his duties as an officer of the court.
