A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has issued an interim order restraining Omoyele Sowore and other activists from organising or participating in the planned October 20 #FreeNnamdiKanu protest in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).

The ruling followed an ex parte application filed by the Federal Government through the Nigeria Police Force, seeking to prevent demonstrations near key government areas, including Aso Rock Villa, the National Assembly, and the Unity Fountain.

In his decision, Justice M.G. Umar granted the interim injunction against Sowore, the Take It Back Movement, the #RevolutionNow group, and “persons unknown,” effectively halting the planned march. The case, marked FHC/ABJ/2202/2025, represents a major blow to activists advocating for the release of detained IPOB leader Nnamdi Kanu.

Confirming the development, Sowore, a former presidential candidate, expressed disappointment on social media, alleging that the order was secretly granted after being initially declined in open court.

“After first refusing the government’s ex parte motion in open court, the judge reportedly granted it in chambers, banning protests around Aso Rock, the National Assembly, and Unity Fountain,” Sowore posted on 𝕏.

Meanwhile, the United States Embassy has issued a travel advisory, urging its citizens to avoid protest locations in Abuja amid rising tensions surrounding the event.

The planned demonstration, which gained massive traction online, was intended to demand Nnamdi Kanu’s immediate release from the custody of the Department of State Services (DSS). It had also drawn the support of prominent political figures, including a former Vice President and a former Senate President. Organisers had vowed to march peacefully to the Presidential Villa to press their demands before the injunction halted their plans.

In its submission, the Federal Government argued that the protest posed a potential threat to public peace and security, urging the court to intervene before the event could take place.

Background on Nnamdi Kanu’s Detention

Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has been in DSS custody since June 2021, facing charges of terrorism and treasonable felony.

His legal troubles began in 2015, when he was first arrested after returning from the UK. He was later granted bail in 2017 but fled the country following a military raid on his Abia State residence.

Kanu was rearrested in Kenya and extradited to Nigeria in June 2021. In April 2022, the Federal High Court struck out eight of the charges against him, but although the Court of Appeal ordered his release later that year, the Supreme Court reversed the decision in December 2023, allowing the trial to proceed.

Kanu’s continued detention has fuelled nationwide calls for justice, particularly among his supporters in the Southeast. The now-suspended October 20 protest was the latest in a series of efforts aimed at pressuring the government to free him.

By Hassan Taiye

Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja, has shifted further trial of the Biafran nation agitator, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu on alleged terrorism charges to October 16th.

The trial was on Wednesday shifted to October 16 following the inability of the Nigerian Medical Association (NMA) to conclude its assessment of Kanu’s health status and present its report before the court.

Justice Omotosho had at the last adjourned date, ordered the NMA President to constitute a board of medical experts to carry out investigations on the alleged deteriorating health of the defendant.

The essence of the medical examination was among others, to know weather the medical facility at the Department of the State Service DSS headquarters can cater for Kanu or be moved to the National Hospital as requested by the defendant.

The report is also to determine weather Kanu is fit to stand for continuation of his trial.

However, at Wednesday’s proceedings, the DSS Lawyer, Mr Suraj S’aad SAN, informed Justice Omotosho that the Medical board had contacted them that the report was not ready for presentation as directed by the court.

The senior lawyer therefore applied for a week adjournment to enable the NMA Medical board conclude its investigation.

Following no objection to the adjournment request by Onyechi Ikpeazu SAN who stood for Kanu, Justice Omotosho fixed October 16th for the board to submit its report and determine the next line of proceedings.

By: Fabian Apechihin

The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved judgment in the suit filed by the Osun State Government against the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), over the alleged withholding of statutory allocations due to the state’s 30 local government councils.

A seven-member panel of justices, led by Justice Uwani Aba-Aji, reserved the judgment after hearing arguments from Osun’s counsel, Mr. Musbau Adetunbi (SAN), and Chief Akin Olujimi (SAN), who represented the AGF. Justice Aba-Aji said the date for the judgment would be communicated to all parties in due course.

The Osun State Government approached the apex court seeking an order compelling the Federal Government to release withheld funds and stop what it described as the “unconstitutional and arbitrary seizure” of local government revenues since March 2025.

Adetunbi told the court that the state was seeking ten reliefs supported by eleven grounds and a 35-paragraph affidavit. He argued that the AGF ignored valid judgments of the Federal High Court in Osogbo (delivered on November 30, 2022) and the Court of Appeal (June 13, 2025), which affirmed the legitimacy of council chairmen and councillors elected on February 22.

The state maintained that the AGF’s directive in a March 26, 2025 letter to withhold local government funds pending the resolution of a political dispute violated these judgments and exceeded his constitutional powers.

Among the reliefs sought, Osun asked the court to declare that the AGF lacked the authority to seize local government funds, that his actions contravened existing court rulings, and that all withheld allocations should be released directly to the duly elected councils. It also requested a perpetual injunction restraining any future withholding of such funds.

The state further raised five constitutional issues for the court’s determination, including whether the AGF is bound under Section 287 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) to enforce the decisions of the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal, and whether his March 26 directive can stand in light of those rulings.

In opposition, Chief Olujimi, representing the AGF, filed a preliminary objection urging the court to dismiss the suit. He argued that the Osun Government lacked the legal standing to invoke the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, insisting the matter was essentially a dispute between political parties rather than between a state and the federation.

The apex court’s judgment, when delivered, is expected to clarify the constitutional limits of the AGF’s powers regarding state and local government financial allocations.

(NAN)