The Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, has demanded an “immediate explanation” from the British Government for its failure to intervene in the “persecution and prolonged 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 could require intervention when internationally accepted requirements will not be met or when authorized proceedings are subjected to unreasonable delay.
“Yet, faced with the grave violations in Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s case, Britain refuses to apply its own stated policy,” the assertion stated.
The assertion learn, “How does Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s treatment meet internationally accepted standards of legality, due process and respect for fundamental 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, known as for his quick launch?
“How can his continued detention and the proceedings that followed 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conviction of 20 November 2025 with part 36(12) of Nigeria’s Constitution, when the underlying terrorism laws had been repealed?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 underneath problem as having been delivered per incuriam.
“How can a conviction stand on a charge sheet that discloses no offence under extant law and includes counts previously discharged by the Court of Appeal, a superior court 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 is not interference, IPOB added, “Diplomatic representations regarding due course of, basic human rights and unreasonable judicial delay are official devices of consular and diplomatic engagement, not interference with judicial independence. Britain can not conceal behind “non-interference” whereas its personal citizen faces grave violations of his rights.
“IPOB is not asking Britain to dictate the outcome of a Nigerian court proceeding. We demand that Britain use its diplomatic leverage to press Nigeria to uphold legality, respect fundamental rights and ensure that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s pending appeal receives a prompt hearing.
“If the British Government claims it can not—or won’t—uphold its coverage to shield its citizen from state-sponsored persecution, absolutely the naked minimal it should do is use its diplomatic leverage to compel Nigeria to checklist 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 basic scheduling of an appeal, Britain moves from passive indifference to active complicity.
It therefore urged the British government to use diplomatic leverage to press Nigeria to list and hear Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s pending appeal and all associated suits across the relevant judicial tiers without further delay.
“Britain should now select: translate its acknowledged 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.
