Nnamdi Kanu’s Family Accuses UK Of Failing To Protect Its Citizen, Demands Action To Secure His Freedom

The family of imprisoned Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Nnamdi Kanu, has accused the British government of failing to take decisive action to secure his freedom and ensure a hearing of his appeal against his conviction in Nigeria.

In a statement dated October 18, 2026, and signed by Prince Emmanuel Kanu on behalf of the Okwu-Kanu family, the family called on the United Kingdom to move beyond diplomatic engagements and take concrete steps to address what it described as fundamental violations of the Nigerian Constitution in the prosecution and continued detention of the separatist leader.

The family said Kanu, a British citizen who was born a ‘Biafran’, had spent a cumulative eight years in Nigerian detention following his rendition from Kenya.

It argued that his continued incarceration raised serious legal and constitutional questions, particularly regarding the legislation under which he was convicted and the status of his pending appeal.

“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“He was convicted under a statute Nigeria had already repealed and remains held while his appeal sits unlisted and unheard.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 maintained that routine diplomatic engagements and occasional consular welfare visits had failed to produce tangible results, demanding that the British government explain the specific measures it had taken to protect Kanu’s rights.

Family Raises Five Legal Concerns Over Kanu’s Conviction

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

It argued that he was convicted under repealed legislation without the prosecution identifying an applicable provision of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 that defines the offences and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.

According to the family, this raises questions under Section 36(12) of the Nigerian Constitution, which requires that an act or omission must constitute an offence under written law, with a prescribed penalty, before a person can be convicted for it.

The family also 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 after the ruling and was held for approximately 14 months following the discharge without a valid subsisting charge.

The statement further questioned the use of a civil stay of execution, which the family said was obtained 14 days after the appellate decision, to suspend the effect of a criminal appellate ruling.

It also 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.

The family called on the British government to seek clarification from Nigerian authorities regarding the legal basis for the conviction and continued detention.

The allegations and legal interpretations contained in the statement represent the family’s position. The supplied statement does not include the full judgments or court orders necessary to independently establish the status and legal effect of each proceeding.

Family Invokes Supreme Court Justice’s Warning On Corruption

The family also cited comments attributed to retired Supreme Court Justice Amina Augie on October 17, 2026, warning that corruption could undermine public confidence in the judiciary.

According to the statement, Augie cautioned that corruption could turn the courts into “one more market stall.”

The family invoked the reported remarks while questioning how a life sentence could stand if the conviction rested on legislation that was no longer in force and no applicable provision of existing written law had been identified.

It argued that the case raised broader questions about constitutional compliance, judicial accountability and the protection of fundamental rights.

UK Urged To Explain Response To Pending Appeal

The Okwu-Kanu family said Kanu’s appeal, which it stated was filed and served in June 2026, had yet to be listed for hearing.

It questioned whether the British government had formally raised the delay with Nigerian authorities and demanded specific information about the diplomatic steps taken to secure an early hearing.

The family also asked whether Kanu’s case had been referred to the Envoy for Complex Consular Detentions, whom it said was appointed in July 2026.

It urged the British government to clarify whether the envoy had been involved and, if not, whether the case would be referred urgently.

The statement questioned whether the UK’s existing diplomatic approach was sufficient in a case involving a British citizen who, according to the family, remained imprisoned despite unresolved constitutional and procedural questions.

Five Questions For British Government

The family posed five questions to the British government, demanding details of its interventions and a clear timetable for further action.

Among other things, it asked whether Britain had formally demanded that Nigerian authorities identify the precise provisions of existing written law under which Kanu was convicted.

It also sought details of the steps taken to secure the prompt listing and hearing of his appeal, whether the case had been referred to the Envoy for Complex Consular Detentions, and what representations had been made concerning his continued detention following the 2022 Court of Appeal decision.

The family further demanded a clear account of the actions Britain intended to take to secure what it described as a lawful resolution of the case.

It said the British government should provide answers rather than rely on routine diplomatic communications.

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

The family argued that Kanu’s British citizenship should translate into meaningful intervention when his legal rights and personal liberty were at stake.

“We demand that Britain prove, through concrete action, that its duty to its citizen does not disappear when that citizen is Biafran,” it added.

Family Recalls Britain’s Role During Nigeria’s Civil War

The statement also drew parallels between Britain’s current response to Kanu’s detention and its historical role during the Nigerian Civil War, also known as the Biafra–Nigeria War.

The family alleged that the British government had publicly advocated peace during the conflict while continuing to supply arms and ammunition to the Nigerian Federal Military Government.

It cited a US intelligence estimate dated August 12, 1969, which it said documented Britain’s reluctance to support an arms embargo because of concerns about its influence.

The family also referred to a statement reportedly made by Hugh Fraser in the British House of Commons on November 17, 1969, that up to 60 per cent of Nigeria’s battle weapons came from Britain.

It said this historical record informed its perception of Britain’s current handling of Kanu’s case.

The family argued that the UK should demonstrate a stronger commitment to protecting the rights of its citizens, irrespective of their political identity or the circumstances surrounding their detention. (SaharaReporters)