Nnamdi Kanu drags UK to court for failing to defend him against Nigeria

The detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) is awaiting the ruling of the British High Court on the suit challenging the United Kingdom’s government for not defending its citizen against the Nigerian government.

Kanu’s legal team stated this in a statement issued on Wednesday by John Halford, Head of Public Law and Human Rights in Blackstone Chambers.

According to the statement, the hearing in the judicial review challenge against the Foreign Secretary, brought on behalf of Nnamdi Kanu, took place Tuesday.

Kanu, the statement stated, is the British national leader of the IPOB, a group that calls for self-determination for Biafra Land.

It noted that in June 2021, he (Kanu) was abducted from the airport in Nairobi, Kenya, by Nigerian security services and was detained and tortured for around 10 days in Kenya. He was then flown, blindfolded, on a private plane to Nigeria.

“For the past 18 months, he has been held in solitary confinement in a cell at the Nigerian intelligence agency headquarters in Abuja, Nigeria. Mr Kanu had travelled to Kenya on his British passport, the only travel document that he holds.

“Since his detention in Nigeria, Mr Kanu’s family have been asking the British government to take steps to secure his release on the grounds there was no lawful basis for bringing him to Nigeria, and he was therefore subject to extraordinary rendition. Mr Kanu’s family have also argued that his ongoing detention is arbitrary,” it said.

Halford stated that the Foreign Secretary has, to date, failed to reach a firm view on whether Mr Kanu was subject to extraordinary rendition. “The family’s legal team brought the challenge on the basis that reaching a firm view is necessary to lawfully determine what steps should be taken to assist Mr Kanu.

“During the hearing yesterday, Charlotte Kilroy KC, acting for Mr Kanu’s brother, Kingsley Kanu, highlighted that Mr Kanu has been the victim of a brazen and violent extraordinary rendition,” he noted.

The statement partly read, “She (Kilroy) noted that this is not the first time that the Nigerian government has tried to harm Mr Kanu. In September 2017, when he was at his home in Nigeria, the Nigerian military launched a violent raid on his house, attempting to kill him and killing 28 members of the IPOB in the process. She cited a Nigerian court judgment in which the judge described the Nigerian government’s agents as ‘[setting] out as pythons to terminate the life’ of Mr Kanu.

“She then outlined the overwhelming evidence that Mr Kanu has been subject to extraordinary rendition, noting that the Nigerian government itself has admitted in domestic proceedings that it transferred Mr Kanu to Nigeria without any lawful warrant for arrest nor any extradition process. Moreover, the Nigerian Court of Appeal ruled that Mr Kanu was subject to extraordinary rendition, a position that the Federal Court of Nigeria subsequently adopted.

“She explained that, given the danger Mr Kanu faces from a regime that has already made clear its willingness to use brute force to kill or harm him, and since he is a British citizen abducted whilst travelling on a British passport in a third country, it is incumbent on the British government to assist him.”

Kilroy according to the statement referred the court to domestic policies that evidence a clear acceptance by the British government that it has a role in protecting its citizens abroad, where there is evidence of a miscarriage of justice, and various instances in which the British government has publicly condemned the actions of other states or called for the release of its citizens where they have been arbitrarily detained abroad.

“She argued that the evidence of Mr Kanu’s rendition has been clear and overwhelming for some time. In spite of this, there has been a wholesale failure by the British government to reach a view on whether Mr Kanu is a victim of extraordinary rendition. She explained that reaching such a view is indisputably necessary in order to lawfully determine what steps should be taken to assist Mr Kanu. A proper decision-making process is especially vital given that Mr Kanu’s health is failing in detention, and 18 months have passed since his initial detention.”

Responding, Sir James Eadie KC, acting on behalf of the Foreign Secretary, according to the statement, said that reaching a firm view on whether Mr Kanu was subject to extraordinary rendition was a matter of foreign policy in which the courts must not interfere, there was no legal basis for the court to require the Foreign Secretary to reach a view, and that Mr Kanu’s challenge was ‘pointless’.

“Following the hearing, the parties are now waiting for the court to provide its ruling.”Kanu’s brother, Kingsley, who brought the challenge, said: “It is well known that the Nigerian courts are heavily influenced by the Nigerian government. However, they have been brave enough to take a firm stand and rule that my brother was subject to extraordinary rendition at the hands of the Nigerian government. If the Nigerian courts can do this, it is not clear to me what further evidence the British government needs to reach a firm view. I hope that the UK court will now require the Foreign Secretary to reach a firm view.”