NNAMDI KANU’S FAMILY ACCUSES UK OF FAILING TO PROTECT ITS CITIZEN, DEMANDS ACTION TO SECURE HIS FREEDOM

The family of detained Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Nnamdi Kanu, has accused the British government of failing to take decisive action to secure his freedom.

It described the UK’s diplomatic engagement as inadequate and demanded concrete steps to address what it calls fundamental violations of Nigerian law.

The accusation was contained in a statement issued on Sunday by Prince Emmanuel Kanu on behalf of the Okwu-Kanu family, which outlined five major legal concerns and posed direct questions to the British government .

THE ACCUSATION

Kanu, a British citizen, is serving a life sentence in Sokoto following his conviction on terrorism charges in November 2025.

The family said Britain’s diplomatic engagements had failed to secure Kanu’s release, a hearing of his appeal, or a meaningful resolution of the legal issues surrounding his conviction.

“Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is a British citizen, born a Biafran,” the statement read. “He was convicted under a statute Nigeria had already repealed and remains held while his appeal sits unlisted and unheard. Britain has engaged diplomatically but has secured neither his freedom, a hearing of his appeal, nor a meaningful remedy”.

The family described the consular contact it had experienced as inadequate, saying occasional telephone calls to inquire about Kanu’s welfare could not substitute for effective action.

“A ten-minute call every three to four months asking about food and health, as the family describes its experience, is not an adequate response to a case involving a life sentence, a disputed legal foundation and an appeal that remains unheard. It is a welfare check, not a solution,” the family said .

THE LEGAL CONCERNS

The family outlined five major legal concerns relating to Kanu’s detention, prosecution and conviction.

First, it argued that he was convicted under repealed legislation without the prosecution identifying an applicable provision of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 that defines the offences and prescribes the relevant penalties.

This, the family said, raises questions under Section 36(12) of the Nigerian Constitution.

Second, the family referred to an October 2022 Court of Appeal decision, which it said discharged Kanu and quashed charges against him. It alleged that he nevertheless remained in custody for approximately 14 months after the discharge without a valid subsisting charge.

Third, the family questioned the use of a civil stay of execution, obtained 14 days after the appellate decision, to suspend the effect of a criminal appellate ruling .

Fourth, it challenged Kanu’s subsequent prosecution and conviction in November 2025, alleging that the proceedings involved charges previously quashed by the Court of Appeal and relied on legislation that had already been repealed .

Fifth, the family said Kanu’s appeal, filed and served in June 2026, had yet to be listed for hearing as of October 18, 2026 .

THE DEMANDS

The family urged the British government to move beyond routine consular visits and disclose the concrete steps it had taken to address the case.

It specifically asked whether Kanu’s case had been referred to the United Kingdom’s Envoy for Complex Consular Detentions, appointed in July 2026, and urged the Foreign Secretary to refer it urgently if this had not been done.

“We demand action, not engagement. We demand answers, not consular visits,” the statement declared.

The family also called on the British government to formally ask Nigerian authorities to identify the specific, current provisions of written law under which Kanu was convicted and detained.

THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT

The family linked Britain’s current handling of Kanu’s case to its historical role in the Nigerian Civil War, accusing the British government of prioritising strategic interests over Biafra.

Citing a United States intelligence assessment dated August 12, 1969, and parliamentary proceedings of November 17, 1969, it alleged that Britain continued supplying arms to the Nigerian Federal Government during the war despite publicly advocating peace.

“Britain’s historical hostility towards Biafra has been transferred to Mazi Nnamdi Kanu,” the family said.

WHY IT MATTERS

ADVERTISEMENT

The Kanu case is a test of Britain’s commitment to protecting its citizens abroad.

Kanu holds British citizenship. He was rendered from Kenya to Nigeria in 2021, a process that Nigerian courts have themselves questioned.

He has been in detention for years, and his appeal remains unheard. The family’s accusation that Britain has been complicit, through silence, through inadequate consular support, through failure to demand accountability, is a serious charge that the UK government has not yet answered.

For Nigerians, the case is a reminder of the long reach of the state and the difficulty of securing justice for those it targets. For Britain, it is a question of whether its professed commitment to the rule of law extends to its own citizens when they are detained in allied countries.

ValidViewNetwork reports that Kanu remains in Sokoto Correctional Centre. His appeal remains unheard. His family continues to demand action.