Nnamdi Kanu, a dual British-Nigerian national, entered Kenya on a British passport in June 2021, only to be forcibly renditioned to Nigeria without extradition proceedings. Article 5 of the Hague Convention (1930) required Kenya, as a third state, to recognize Kanu as having a single nationality—British, given his use of a UK passport, decades-long residence in the UK, and leadership of IPOB from London. Kenya’s failure to treat him as a British national and its role in his unlawful transfer triggered the UK’s consular obligations under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963). The FCDO’s awareness of this breach, yet its refusal to act decisively, forms a critical point of contention.

Supreme Court of Nigeria’s 2023 Ruling

In December 2023, the Supreme Court of Nigeria ruled that Kanu’s forcible removal from Kenya was a criminal act, labeling it a “kidnap” and “abduction” that violated international law and Nigerian legal standards. While overturning a Court of Appeal decision that had ordered his release, the court permitted the trial to proceed, prioritizing the terrorism charges over the rendition’s illegality. This ruling—explicitly known to the FCDO—confirms the rendition’s unlawfulness, providing a judicial basis for UK intervention that has been ignored.

Re-arraignment on March 21, 2025

According to ThisDay, Daily Post, and Premium Times, Kanu was re-arraigned on March 21, 2025, before Justice James Omotosho at the Federal High Court in Abuja, following the case’s reassignment by Chief Judge John Tsoho. He faced seven terrorism-related charges related to his broadcasts on Radio Biafra from London calling for Biafra’s independence from Nigeria, not that he physically or actively planned, directed or carried out any terrosist attack, to which he pleaded not guilty. Kanu objected to the court’s jurisdiction through papera filed in court, citing his unlawful rendition, and expressed intent to represent himself, though he was supported by a new defense team led by former Attorney General of Nigeria Chief Kanu Agabi (SAN). The prosecution, led by Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), pressed forward, marking the start of a trial de novo after years of procedural delays. This re-arraignment resets the legal clock, amplifying the case’s irregularities.

Legal Implications of Repealed Laws

The charges Kanu originally faced in 2015 stemmed from the Terrorism (Prevention Amendment) Act of 2013, which was repealed in its entirety by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act of 2022. Nigerian legal precedent holds that savings clauses—intended to preserve cases under repealed laws—apply only to completed cases, not trials starting afresh (de novo). The March 21, 2025, re-arraignment constitutes a new trial, meaning the prosecution’s reliance on the 2013 Act lacks legal grounding. This renders the charges potentially void, as no extant law supports them, exposing a fundamental flaw in the judicial process.

United Kingdom Reluctance to Assist Kanu

The FCDO’s refusal to intervene in Nnamdi Kanu’s detention likely stems from a mix of historical aversion to Biafran separatism, economic interests tied to Nigeria’s oil and gas resources, and diplomatic caution. The UK’s support for a unified Nigeria during the Biafran War and its reliance on Nigerian energy exports—such as LNG meeting up to 10% of UK demand—may underpin a reluctance to challenge Nigeria over Kanu, a pro-Biafra leader, despite his British citizenship and the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling of his rendition as an illegal “kidnap.” Officially, the FCDO cites non-interference in Nigeria’s judicial process, now a flawed de novo trial under a repealed 2013 law, but this stance conveniently aligns with preserving Commonwealth ties and economic benefits, prioritizing strategic relations over consular duty.

#FreeMaziNnamdiKanuNow
#EndNigeriaNowToSaveLives
#BiafraReferendumNow