UK Government Criticized by Pan-Igbo Activists for Ignoring Nnamdi Kanu’s Case

Pan-Igbo self-determination activists have denounced the UK government’s silence about the conviction and sentencing of Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, or IPOB.

In a joint statement released on Tuesday, the Rising Sun Foundation (RSF), Ambassadors for Self-Determination (ASD), and American Veterans of Igbo Descent (AVID) accused the UK government of failing to protect its citizens. Kanu is a British citizen.

On November 20, 2025, the IPOB leader was found guilty of terrorist charges brought by the Nigerian government following a multi-year trial. The agitator was found guilty and given a life sentence by the Abuja Federal High Court, which was presided over by James Omotosho.

Kanu is presently incarcerated at the Nigeria Correctional Service’s Sokoto detention center.

The pan-Igbo activists chastised the UK government in a statement co-signed by Dr. Sylvester Onyia, AVID, Evans Nwankwo, ASD, and Maxwell Dede, RSF, for failing to act in Kanu’s case in the same way it has been acting in comparable circumstances.

The statement, titled “Public briefing note on the UK government’s silence over the rendition, unlawful detention, and life imprisonment of British citizen, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu,” called the British government’s silence concerning and contradictory.

“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High Court (per Justice James Omotosho) sentenced Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, a British citizen, to life imprisonment under a repealed law, despite a binding Court of Appeal acquittal issued on October 13, 2022,” the statement read.

The UK–Nigeria Extradition Treaty (2008), the European Convention on Extradition, the UN Convention Against Torture (Article 3), and Nigeria’s domestic laws, which prohibit trying a renditioned suspect, were all violated by Kanu’s illegal rendition from Kenya in June 2021.
The UK government has not released a statement since the sentencing on November 20, despite the seriousness of these offenses and the fact that Kanu was kidnapped while holding a British passport and broadcasting calmly from London, where IPOB is lawfully registered.

“This silence is out of the ordinary, concerning, and at odds with Britain’s international human rights stance.”

Concerned with the UK government’s silence following Kanu’s life sentence, the statement pointed out that the UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) last spoke with Nigerian authorities on November 11, 2025, requesting “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,” it continued. This quiet contrasts sharply with the UK’s handling of instances involving much less serious infractions.

According to the campaigners, the UK’s lack of interest “reads as tacit endorsement of a sham process.”

They also criticized the UK government for failing to protect a British national who had been kidnapped overseas. The statement claims that the UK has not responded to the “fabricated claims in Omotosho’s judgment, including false allegations that Kanu threatened UK/US missions,” demanded compliance with the 2022 appellate discharge, rejected trial under a repealed terrorism statute, or condemned the international kidnapping of its citizen.

The campaigners said that the UK was “violating its duty of diplomatic protection, failing its own citizen.”

The statement noted that the UK has historically been vocal on cases involving detained activists like Alexei Navalny (Russia), Aung San Suu Kyi (Myanmar), Jimmy Lai (Hong Kong), and Julian Assange (Australia/US), and it further accused the UK government of applying rule of law standards selectively. However, the UK has chosen to remain silent about Kanu, a British citizen who faces rendition, torture, unlawful detention, and prosecution under a legislation that has been abolished. Britain’s reputation as a champion of due process and human rights is damaged by this selective approach.

The UK government’s inaction, according to the activists, is proof of prejudice and animosity towards the Igbo people.

We make it very apparent that the UK’s silence is proof of ethnic animosity toward the Igbo. The Igbo diaspora views the UK’s inability to defend Kanu, along with Omotosho’s claims of threats against US and UK missions, as part of a pattern of calculated indifference that is evocative of Britain’s involvement in the Biafran War from 1967 to 1970.

According to the statement, “silence fuels mistrust and reinforces a belief that the UK prioritizes geopolitical convenience over justice.”

The pan-Igbo campaigners cited Kanu’s British citizenship and the fact that his broadcasts from London are protected by UK free speech laws (Human Rights Act 1998; Article 10 ECHR) as reasons why the conviction is important to the UK.

The statement stated, “His political advocacy is peaceful, legal, and constitutionally protected in the UK.” It further mentioned that IPOB is legally registered in the UK under business number 09862831.

“UK economic interests cannot take precedence over human rights commitments. Trade volumes of £6.5 billion a year with Nigeria do not release Britain from its obligation to defend a citizen who is being persecuted by the state. The world’s perception of the UK is at risk. The statement went on, “The UK’s moral standing in future human rights disputes is weakened by silence here.

The Nigerian government’s refusal to abide by a legally binding Court of Appeal ruling, Kanu’s illegal rendition and purported trial under a repealed law, and claims of falsified evidence in the ruling were all major concerns that the activists demanded the UK publicly acknowledge right away.

Additionally, they requested that the UK insist that the Nigerian government abide with the 2022 Court of Appeal ruling that exonerated Kanu and offer the IPOB leader complete consular support, including access to healthcare and oversight of the incarceration conditions.

In addition, the UK government should examine potential sanctions under the UK Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations (Magnitsky model) against officials implicated in the rendition, torture, suppression of court rulings, and fabrication of evidence, as well as initiate a parliamentary investigation into its response to Kanu’s rendition and continued detention.

The idea that this is an internal Nigerian issue is rejected by us. When a British national is kidnapped overseas, subjected to torture, tried under a statute that has been repealed, denied the right to a legally binding appeal acquittal, and found guilty based on false allegations, it becomes a global issue and a test of UK values.

It is quite concerning that the United Kingdom, the guardian of Magna Carta and the originator of contemporary human rights law, has remained silent. It conveys a risky message that the rights of its own citizens can be subordinated to realpolitik and that criteria for a fair trial can be compromised based on the parties involved. This injustice will not be tolerated. Silence equates to complicity.
The statement also said that the UK must take action.