On or about 21 October 2025, the Applicant assumed full carriage and control of his case, thereby asserting his constitutional right to self-representation and immediate oversight of his legal cause. On 26 October 2025, he obtained access to his complete case file for the first time since his incarceration.

“Upon a meticulous examination of the record, the Applicant discovered, with profound juridical concern, that the judgment of this Honourable Court of 15 December 2023 was delivered per curiam—having been predicated upon statutes which, at the material time, had ceased to exist in law.

“The decision, though solemn in pronouncement, was therefore made sub silentio of the extant Terroriam (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, and stands in patent violation of Section 36(12) of the Constitution and Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011.

Upon this discovery, the Applicant acted with utmost dispatch and fidelity to the law, instructing the preparation of a Motion to Set Aside the said judgment, and promptly bringing this companion application for enlargement of time solely to regularize that procedural step.

“The brief interlude between the judgment and the instant application is thus neither wilful nor dilatory but the inevitable consequence of constrained custodial conditions and the subsequent discovery of a jurisdictional aberration only after the applicant personally obtained his record.

“The complaint now raised touches the very root of jurisdiction — a domain to which time and technicality pay no homage. The equitable discretion of this Honourable Court is therefore humbly invited to extend the time ex debito justitiae for the correction of a manifest nullity and the restoration of constitutional order.”

In a supporting affidavit submitted by the youger brother of the IPOB leader, Prince Emmanuel Kanu, the detained Kanu urged the Supreme Court to grant the prayers sought by the IPOB leader.

He said upon taking over his case personally in October 2025, Kanu discovered that the statutes upon which the Supreme Court issued its ruling had been repealed and displaced by subsequent enactment at the time material to the appeal.

He is therefore seeking a fresh motion to set aside the said judgment.

The affidavit read, “That I am the Applicant’s younger brother herein, the Respondent in the substantive Appeal No. SC/CR/1361/2022 — Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Nnamdi Kanu — wherein judgment was delivered by this Honourable Court on 15 December 2023. My brother, the Applicant, is currently in detention and unable to depose to this affidavit.

“That since the delivery of the said judgment, my brother had remained in the custody of the respondent under conditions that severely restricted his access to counsel, to case materials, and to the certified record of proceedings.

That until recently, the prosecution and management of his cause were conducted exclusively through external counsel, and he was neither in possession of the files nor in a position to scrutinize the processes filed on his behalf.

That on or about 21 October 2025, he resolved to personally assume the carriage and control of his case, in order to ensure a thorough personal review and to pursue appropriate redress where

necessary.

“That on 26th October 2025, he was granted access to his complete case file, which he studied line by line. In the course of this examination, he discovered that the judgment of this Honourable Court delivered on 15th December 2023 was, with respect, delivered per incuriam, as it rested upon statutes which had been repealed and displaced by subsequent enactment at the time material to the appeal.

“That upon making this discovery, he immediately resolved to file a Motion to set aside the said judgment, and this present application for extension of time is brought promptly, in good faith.”