Punished Beyond The Court: How The Nigerian State Is Using Distance To Break Mazi Nnamdi Kanu

 Punished Beyond The Court: How The Nigerian State Is Using Distance To Break Mazi Nnamdi Kanu This statement sets out, plainly and without ...

 Punished Beyond The Court: How The Nigerian State Is Using Distance To Break Mazi Nnamdi Kanu

This statement sets out, plainly and without euphemism, what Nigerian authorities have sought to obscure with administrative language.

Following the sentencing of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu to life imprisonment, the state imposed an additional punishment, one never ordered by any court, by transferring him to Sokoto — more than 700 kilometres away from his legal team in Abuja.

This transfer was neither accidental nor routine. It was punishment by design.

The life sentence deprives Kanu of liberty, but the transfer to Sokoto deprives him of justice. By relocating the him to a distant correctional facility, the state has deliberately erected a physical barrier between him and his lawyers, effectively undermining his right to appeal. And this is not correctional management; it is judicial interference executed through geography.

We reject the suggestion that this move was administrative or benign because, no public security justification has been offered, and no urgency necessitated it. What the transfer has achieved, however, is unmistakable: isolation. Distance has been weaponized as a tool of repression, transforming geography into an extension of punishment.

The law is clear. The right to legal representation is not symbolic; it must be effective, continuous, and practical. When a detainee is placed hundreds of kilometres away from his defence team, that right collapses in practice. And in law, it is a right denied.

On December 8, 2025, the Federal High Court in Abuja was presented with an opportunity to halt this abuse; An urgent application was filed seeking Mazi Kanu’s transfer to a facility closer to the country's capital—Kuje, Suleja, or Keffi where his legal team could reasonably access him. Unfortunately, the court declined to grant immediate relief, but instead adjourned the matter to January 27, 2026.

In the context of a life sentence, such delay is indefensible. Postponement here is not neutral. Every day of enforced distance is another day in which the state succeeds in weakening the appeal process. Delay, in this instance, is not merely procedural; it is punitive.

By keeping Mazi Kanu in Sokoto, the Nigerian state is imposing punishment beyond that ordered by the court. This violates the Nigerian Constitution and contravenes international human rights standards that guarantee adequate facilities for the preparation of a defence.

Punishment ends where judgment ends. Anything beyond that constitutes excess, and excess punishment is unlawful.

Justice does not fear access. Justice does not hide defendants from their lawyers. When a state resorts to isolation after conviction, it signals not confidence in its case, but anxiety about scrutiny. Concealing a prisoner from counsel is not an expression of strength; it is an admission of fear.

We therefore state without reservation that the transfer of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu to Sokoto is not a correctional decision. It is an extrajudicial penalty imposed without hearing, without transparency, and without legal authority.

For this reason, we call on international human rights bodies, legal observers, and all institutions committed to due process to treat this matter with the seriousness it demands. The adjournment into 2026 must not be normalized. Distance must not be permitted to become a silent instrument of injustice.

A state that punishes beyond the law ceases to act as a custodian of justice and begins to resemble its adversary.

Justice exiled is justice denied!

#FreeMaziNnamdiKanuNow

Family Writers Press International