KEY POINTS
-
IPOB accused the UK of failing to protect Nnamdi Kanu and urged diplomatic action over his life sentence.
-
The group challenged the legality of his rendition, prosecution and conviction, citing previous court rulings and constitutional provisions.
-
IPOB called for Kanu’s pending appeal and related cases to be heard without further delay.
The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has accused the British Government of failing to protect separatist Nnamdi Kanu, who is serving a life sentence in Nigeria, and called on the United Kingdom to use its diplomatic influence to push for a prompt hearing of his pending appeal.
In a statement issued on Monday, October 19, 2026, IPOB, through its spokesperson, Emma Powerful, questioned the legality of Kanu’s prosecution, conviction and continued detention.
The group urged the UK Government to press Nigerian authorities to ensure that his appeal and related court cases are heard without further delay.
IPOB challenged the UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) to explain why it had not taken stronger diplomatic action over Kanu’s imprisonment.
The group argued that the British Government should apply its stated commitment to protecting citizens detained abroad to Kanu’s case, particularly where questions have been raised about due process, fundamental rights and delays in judicial proceedings.
According to IPOB, diplomatic engagement does not necessarily amount to interference in Nigeria’s judicial system. It maintained that the UK could raise concerns about the treatment of its citizens without dictating the outcome of court proceedings.
The group said it was not asking Britain to determine Kanu’s legal fate but to encourage Nigerian authorities to uphold the law and ensure that his pending appeal receives timely attention.
Group revisits Kanu’s rendition from Kenya
One of IPOB’s major concerns is Kanu’s transfer from Kenya to Nigeria in June 2021, which the group described as an illegal rendition.
IPOB cited Opinion No. 25/2022 of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, which it said called for Kanu’s immediate release.
The group challenged the British Government to explain how the circumstances surrounding his transfer complied with international legal standards.
It argued that the circumstances of Kanu’s return to Nigeria remain relevant to questions about the legality of his detention and the protection of his fundamental rights.
However, the claims and legal interpretations presented in IPOB’s statement represent the group’s position on the case.
IPOB challenges proceedings after Court of Appeal judgment
The pro-Biafra group also questioned the continuation of proceedings against Kanu following a Court of Appeal judgment delivered on October 13, 2022.
According to IPOB, the appellate court discharged Kanu on specified counts, raising questions about the subsequent proceedings and his continued detention.
The group argued that the legal implications of the judgment should be considered in assessing the validity of the later proceedings.
It also questioned the basis for relying on a Supreme Court judgment to justify continuing the case, describing that decision as having been delivered per incuriam, a legal term referring to a decision made without proper regard to a relevant law or binding authority.
IPOB further disputed the inclusion of counts it said had previously been discharged by the Court of Appeal, arguing that the lower court could not disregard the implications of the appellate court’s decision.
Group disputes legal basis for life sentence
IPOB also challenged Kanu’s conviction on November 20, 2025, arguing that the terrorism legislation underpinning the charges had been repealed.
The group invoked Section 36(12) of the Nigerian Constitution, which provides that a person cannot be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence is defined and its penalty prescribed in a written law.
IPOB argued that the charges against Kanu did not disclose offences under an applicable law and questioned whether the conviction could stand under those circumstances.
The group maintained that the legal status of the legislation and the validity of the charges should be examined as part of the wider dispute over Kanu’s conviction.
These assertions were made by IPOB in its statement and should not be treated as independent findings of the courts. The precise legal effect of the relevant judgments and legislation would need to be assessed against the court records and applicable laws.
IPOB demands urgent hearing of pending appeal
The group’s central demand is for the British Government to use diplomatic channels to encourage the prompt scheduling and hearing of Kanu’s pending appeal and related cases across the relevant courts.
IPOB argued that even if the UK was unwilling to intervene more broadly in the allegations surrounding his detention, it should at least press for the appeal to be heard without unnecessary delay.
It rejected the argument that such a request would amount to interference in Nigeria’s judicial process, maintaining that diplomatic representations concerning due process and unreasonable delays were legitimate.
In its statement, the group warned that Britain’s failure to demand the scheduling of the appeal amounted to complicity in the alleged violations of Kanu’s rights.
IPOB called on the UK to demonstrate that its commitment to protecting British citizens abroad extended to Kanu, whom it described as a British citizen of Biafran descent.
Group calls for diplomatic action
IPOB urged the British Government to move beyond statements of concern and take concrete diplomatic steps to address the issues it raised.
The group said the priority should be ensuring that Kanu’s pending appeal and related proceedings move forward, while respecting the authority of Nigerian courts to determine the case.
The statement adds to the ongoing controversy surrounding Kanu’s detention, the legal proceedings against him and calls for action from the British Government.
The UK Government’s response to the latest demands was not included in the supplied report.
