By PAMELA EBOH, Awka

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.

The demand was contained in a statement by its Media and Publicity Secretary, Emma Powerful, on Monday evening.

The statement reads in part: “UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) acknowledges that British nationals detained abroad may require intervention when internationally accepted standards are not met or when legal 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.”

IPOB challenged the British Government: to explain how Nnamdi Kanu’s treatment meet internationally accepted standards of legality, due process and respect for fundamental human rights.

It further reeled out five fundamental questions, saying: “EXTRAORDINARY Rendition: How does the illegal rendition of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu from Kenya to Nigeria in June 2021 meet internationally accepted standards, particularly when the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, in Opinion No. 25/2022, called for his immediate release?

“Defiance of the Court of Appeal’s judgement: 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?

“Conviction under Repealed Constitution: Can Britain reconcile his conviction of 20 November 2025 with section 36(12) of Nigeria’s Constitution, when the underlying terrorism legislation had been repealed? Prong 1 of the Supreme Court judgment made the existence of an extant and subsisting statute a condition precedent to continuation of the proceedings. That condition was not satisfied: the charge sheet did not disclose an offence known to extant or subsisting law. The Supreme Court judgment relied upon to justify continuation is under challenge as having been delivered per incuriam.

“Previously Quashed Counts: 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?

“Unreasonable Judicia Delay: How can Britain ignore the prolonged failure to hear Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s pending appeal while claiming to oppose unreasonable delay in legal proceedings?”

While noting that intervention is not interference, the separatist group cited that

Diplomatic representations concerning due process, fundamental human rights and unreasonable judicial delay are legitimate instruments of consular and diplomatic engagement, not interference with judicial independence.

It stressed that Britain cannot hide behind “non-interference” while its own citizen faces grave violations of his rights.

IPOB noted that it is not asking Britain to dictate the outcome of a Nigerian court proceeding, but is rather demanding 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.

The group further said, “If the British Government claims it cannot—or will not—uphold its policy to protect its citizen from state-sponsored persecution, the absolute bare minimum it must do is use its diplomatic leverage to compel Nigeria to list and hear Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s pending appeal, along with all associated suits across other tiers of court, without further delay.

“By refusing to demand even the basic scheduling of an appeal, Britain moves from passive indifference to active complicity.

“IPOB’S CORE DEMAND

DEMAND AN IMMEDIATE HEARING: 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 must now choose: translate its stated commitment to protecting its citizens into meaningful action, or expose that commitment as empty rhetoric when a British citizen of Biafran descent needs that protection most.”