Issued Jointly by:
American Veterans of Igbo Descent (AVID)
Ambassadors for Self-Determination (ASD)
Rising Sun Foundation (RSF)
United States – 9th of December 2025
1. Background
On November 20, 2025, Nigeria’s Federal High Court (per Justice James Omotosho) sentenced Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, a British citizen, to life imprisonment under a repealed law, despite a binding Court of Appeal acquittal issued on October 13, 2022.
Kanu’s ordeal began with his illegal rendition from Kenya in June 2021, an operation executed without extradition proceedings, in violation of:
The UK–Nigeria Extradition Treaty (2008)
The European Convention on Extradition
The UN Convention Against Torture (Article 3)
Nigeria’s domestic laws, which bar trying a renditioned suspect. Despite the gravity of these violations—and the fact that Kanu was abducted as a British passport holder broadcasting peacefully from London, where IPOB is legally registered—the UK Government has issued no statement since the November 20 sentencing.
This silence is unprecedented, alarming, and inconsistent with Britain’s global human-rights posture.
2. Key Concerns
A. UK Silence After the November 20 Life Sentence:
The Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) last engaged Nigeria on 11 November 2025, urging “fair trial standards” and consular access.
Since the life sentence, there has been no statement, no parliamentary briefing, no diplomatic protest, and no sanctioning of Nigerian officials.
This silence stands in stark contrast to the UK’s response to cases involving far less egregious violations.
Implication:
The UK’s indifference reads as tacit endorsement of a sham process.
B. Lack of Protection for a British Citizen Abducted Abroad. The UK has offered no explanation for its failure to:
*Condemn the international abduction of its citizen
*Demand compliance with the 2022 appellate discharge
*Reject trial under a repealed terrorism statute
*Respond to the fabricated claims in Omotosho’s judgment, including false allegations that Kanu threatened UK/US missions
Implication:
The UK is failing its own citizen, violating its duty of diplomatic protection.
C. Selective Application of Rule of Law Standards
The UK has historically been vocal on:
Alexei Navalny (Russia)
Aung San Suu Kyi (Myanmar)
Jimmy Lai (Hong Kong)
Julian Assange (Australia/US)
Yet for Kanu—a British national facing rendition, torture, illegal detention, and conviction under a repealed law—the UK has chosen silence.
Implication:
This selective approach undermines Britain’s credibility as a champion of human rights and due process.
D. Perception of Bias Against Igbo Self-Determination Movements
We emphasize clearly:
The UK’s silence is evidence of ethnic hostility toward the Igbo.
However, historical memory matters.
The Igbo diaspora perceives the UK’s failure to protect Kanu—coupled with Omotosho’s fabricated allegations of threats against UK/US missions—as part of a pattern of calculating neglect, reminiscent of Britain’s 1967–1970 role during the Biafran War.
Implication:
Silence fuels distrust and reinforces a belief that the UK prioritizes geopolitical convenience over justice.
3. Why This Matters to the UK
A. Kanu is a British Citizen
His broadcasts from London fall under UK free speech protections (Human Rights Act 1998; Article 10 ECHR).
His political advocacy is peaceful, legal, and constitutionally protected in the UK.
B. IPOB is Legally Registered in the UK. Company No. 09862831. Its operations are lawful and transparent.
C. UK Economic Interests Cannot Override Human Rights Obligations. Trade volumes (£6.5bn annually) with Nigeria do not absolve Britain of protecting a citizen facing state persecution.
@Keir_Starmer @FCDOGovUK @StateDept @USinNigeria @EU_Commission @UN @FederalHigh @njcNig @NigerianBarz @KnessetENG @RMontgomeryUK @UKinNigeria
0 Comments