The Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, has demanded an “rapid clarification” from the British Government for its failure to intervene in the “persecution and extended detention of its citizen, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, in Nigeria”.
IPOB made the demand in a press release by its spokesman, Emma Powerful, on Monday.
The pro-Biafra group famous that the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, FCDO, had acknowledged that British nationals detained overseas might require intervention when internationally accepted requirements are usually not met or when authorized proceedings are subjected to unreasonable delay.
“Yet, confronted with the grave violations in Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s case, Britain refuses to apply its personal said coverage,” the assertion stated.
The assertion learn, “How does Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s therapy meet internationally accepted requirements of legality, due course of and respect for elementary human rights?
“How does the unlawful rendition of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu from Kenya to Nigeria in June 2021 meet internationally accepted requirements, notably when the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, in Opinion No. 25/2022, referred to as for his rapid launch?
“How can his continued detention and the proceedings that adopted be reconciled with the Court of Appeal’s judgment of 13 October 2022, which discharged him on specified counts?
“How can Britain reconcile his conviction of 20 November 2025 with part 36(12) of Nigeria’s Constitution, when the underlying terrorism laws had been repealed? Prong 1 of the Supreme Court judgment made the existence of an extant and subsisting statute a situation precedent to continuation of the proceedings. That situation was not glad: the cost sheet didn’t disclose an offence recognized to extant or subsisting legislation. The Supreme Court judgment relied upon to justify continuation is below problem as having been delivered per incuriam.
“How can a conviction stand on a cost sheet that discloses no offence below extant legislation and consists of counts beforehand discharged by the Court of Appeal, a superior court docket to the Federal High Court?
“How can Britain ignore the extended failure to hear Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s pending attraction whereas claiming to oppose unreasonable delay in authorized proceedings?”
Stressing that intervention isn’t interference, IPOB added, “Diplomatic representations regarding due course of, elementary human rights and unreasonable judicial delay are professional devices of consular and diplomatic engagement, not interference with judicial independence. Britain can not cover behind “non-interference” whereas its personal citizen faces grave violations of his rights.
“IPOB isn’t asking Britain to dictate the end result of a Nigerian court docket continuing. We demand that Britain use its diplomatic leverage to press Nigeria to uphold legality, respect elementary rights and be certain that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s pending attraction receives a immediate listening to.
“If the British Government claims it can not—or is not going to—uphold its coverage to defend its citizen from state-sponsored persecution, absolutely the naked minimal it should do is use its diplomatic leverage to compel Nigeria to listing and listen to Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s pending attraction, together with all related fits throughout different tiers of court docket, with out additional delay.”
According to the pro-Biafra group, by refusing to demand even the essential scheduling of an attraction, Britain strikes from passive indifference to lively complicity.
It due to this fact urged the British authorities to use diplomatic leverage to press Nigeria to listing and listen to Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s pending attraction and all related fits throughout the related judicial tiers with out additional delay.
“Britain should now select: translate its said dedication to defending its residents into significant motion, or expose that dedication as empty rhetoric when a British citizen of Biafran descent wants that safety most,” the assertion stated.
