The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has called on the British Government to explain what it describes as its failure to intervene over the prolonged detention and alleged violations of the fundamental rights of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, whom the organisation identifies as a British citizen of Biafran descent.
In a statement, signed by the Spokesperson/Media and Publicity Secretary
Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Comrade Emma Powerful, Monday, 19th October, 2026, said “IPOB questioned the approach of the United Kingdom’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) to Kanu’s case, arguing that the circumstances surrounding his detention and legal proceedings warrant more robust diplomatic engagement.”
The organisation maintains that British consular policy recognises the importance of due process, access to justice and the avoidance of unreasonable delays in legal proceedings involving British nationals detained abroad.
Against this background, IPOB has challenged the British Government to explain how Kanu’s treatment aligns with internationally accepted standards of legality, due process and respect for fundamental human rights.
FIVE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
IPOB has raised five principal questions concerning Kanu’s rendition to Nigeria, subsequent court proceedings, conviction and pending appeal.
1. Extraordinary rendition from Kenya
IPOB has questioned the circumstances surrounding Kanu’s transfer from Kenya to Nigeria in June 2021, describing it as an unlawful rendition.
The organisation has also cited Opinion No. 25/2022 of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, which called for Kanu’s release. IPOB is asking the British Government to explain what diplomatic representations it has made concerning the circumstances of his transfer and the findings contained in the UN opinion.
2. The Court of Appeal’s judgment of 13 October 2022
IPOB has questioned the legal implications of the Court of Appeal’s judgment of 13 October 2022, which discharged Kanu on the counts addressed in its decision.
The organisation argues that his subsequent detention and the continuation of criminal proceedings raise questions about the scope and effect of that judgment. It wants the British Government to clarify its position on the legal issues arising from the appellate court’s decision.
3. Conviction and the applicability of repealed legislation
IPOB has also challenged Kanu’s conviction, dated 20 November 2025, arguing that the applicable legal framework raises questions under Section 36(12) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which provides constitutional safeguards against conviction for an act that does not constitute an offence under a written law.
According to the organisation, the repeal of the legislation underpinning the relevant charges raises questions about whether the proceedings could lawfully continue. IPOB further argues that the Supreme Court judgment relied upon to justify their continuation is open to challenge on the ground that it was delivered per incuriam.
These are legal contentions advanced by IPOB. Their determination requires consideration of the relevant statutory provisions, the applicable transitional arrangements and the precise reasoning and orders contained in the court judgments.
4. Counts previously discharged by the Court of Appeal
IPOB has questioned whether the conviction can stand in light of what it describes as the inclusion of counts previously discharged by the Court of Appeal.
The organisation argues that the status of those counts, alongside its challenge to the validity of the charge sheet, requires judicial clarification. It is calling on the British Government to seek assurances that the relevant legal questions will be addressed through the appropriate judicial processes.
5. Alleged unreasonable delay in hearing the appeal
IPOB has expressed concern about what it describes as the prolonged failure to hear Kanu’s pending appeal.
The organisation argues that the delay raises questions about timely access to justice and is urging the British Government to press for an early hearing. It maintains that any assessment of the delay should take account of the appeal’s procedural status and the applicable requirements for the administration of justice.
DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION IS NOT JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE
IPOB argues that diplomatic representations concerning due process, fundamental human rights and unreasonable judicial delay do not necessarily constitute interference with judicial independence.
The organisation maintains that the British Government can raise concerns about the treatment of its nationals through established diplomatic and consular channels without dictating the outcome of court proceedings.
“Britain cannot hide behind non-interference while its own citizen faces grave violations of his rights,” the organisation argues.
IPOB says it is not asking the United Kingdom to determine the outcome of Kanu’s case or direct Nigerian courts to reach a particular verdict. Rather, it wants the British Government to use its diplomatic channels to encourage compliance with applicable law, respect for fundamental rights and the timely hearing of pending proceedings.
IPOB’S CENTRAL PROPOSAL TO THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT
IPOB says that, at a minimum, the British Government should use its diplomatic engagement with Nigeria to press for Kanu’s pending appeal to be listed and heard without further delay.
It is also calling for the prompt consideration of related proceedings before the relevant courts, subject to their respective jurisdictions and applicable procedural rules.
The organisation argues that securing a timely hearing would represent a practical step the British Government could pursue without seeking to influence the substantive outcome of the case.
IPOB warns that continued diplomatic inaction, in its view, would undermine confidence in Britain’s stated commitment to protecting the rights and welfare of its citizens abroad.
IPOB’S CORE DEMAND: AN IMMEDIATE HEARING
IPOB is calling on the British Government to:
– Make appropriate diplomatic representations to the Nigerian Government concerning Kanu’s detention and the human-rights concerns raised in his case.
– Press for his pending appeal to be listed and heard promptly.
– Encourage the timely consideration of related proceedings before the relevant courts, in accordance with their jurisdictions and applicable procedural rules.
– Clarify what consular and diplomatic steps the United Kingdom has taken, or intends to take, in response to the concerns raised.
The organisation says the British Government should translate its stated commitment to protecting British nationals abroad into meaningful diplomatic engagement in Kanu’s case.
It maintains that the central issue is whether the concerns surrounding his detention, the legal proceedings and the pending appeal are receiving adequate attention through the available diplomatic and judicial channels.