A coalition of pan-Igbo self-determination groups has criticised the United Kingdom government for keeping silent on the conviction and sentencing of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, leader, Nnamdi Kanu.
The American Veterans of Igbo Descent, AVID, the Ambassadors for Self-Determination, ASD, and the Rising Sun Foundation, RSF, said in a joint statement on Tuesday that the UK had failed to protect its own citizen, noting that Kanu holds a British passport.
After a trial that ran for several years, the IPOB leader was convicted on 20 November 2025 on terrorism charges filed by the Nigerian government. The Abuja Federal High Court, presided over by Justice James Omotosho, not only convicted him but also sentenced him to life imprisonment.
Kanu is now serving his sentence at the Sokoto custodial centre of the Nigeria Correctional Service.
In a statement jointly signed by Dr Sylvester Onyia of AVID, Evans Nwankwo of ASD, and Maxwell Dede of RSF, the groups condemned the UK government for failing to intervene in Kanu’s matter in the same way it has intervened in similar global cases.
Titled Public briefing note on the UK government’s silence over the rendition, unlawful detention and life imprisonment of British citizen, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the document described the British government’s silence as disturbing and inconsistent.
The statement said, “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High Court (per Justice James Omotosho) sentenced Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, a British citizen, to life imprisonment under a repealed law, despite a binding Court of Appeal acquittal issued on October 13, 2022.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) and 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.”
Raising concern over the UK government’s silence following the life imprisonment verdict, the statement noted that the UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, FCDO, had last engaged Nigerian authorities on 11 November 2025, asking for “fair trial standards” and consular access.
It added, “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.”
The groups said the UK’s inaction “reads as tacit endorsement of a sham process”.
They also criticised the UK for failing to defend a British citizen who was abducted in a foreign country. According to them, the UK has not explained why it has failed to condemn the international abduction of its citizen, enforce the binding 2022 Court of Appeal judgment, reject trial under a repealed terrorism law, or respond to “fabricated claims in Omotosho’s judgment, including false allegations that Kanu threatened UK/US missions”.
The statement said, “Implication is that the UK is failing its own citizen, violating its duty of diplomatic protection.”
Accusing the UK of selective application of rule-of-law principles, the coalition pointed out that Britain has been vocal in cases involving Alexei Navalny (Russia), Aung San Suu Kyi (Myanmar), Jimmy Lai (Hong Kong) and 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. This selective approach undermines Britain’s credibility as a champion of human rights and due process.”
The groups further claimed that the UK’s silence shows “bias and hostility towards the Igbo”.
They said, “We emphasise clearly – the UK’s silence is evidence of ethnic hostility toward the Igbo. The Igbo diaspora perceives the UK’s failure to protect Kanu — coupled with Omotosho’s 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.
“Silence fuels distrust and reinforces a belief that the UK prioritises geopolitical convenience over justice.”
Explaining why the conviction should matter to the UK, the groups highlighted that Kanu is a British citizen and that his broadcasts from London are protected by UK free-speech laws (Human Rights Act 1998; Article 10 ECHR).
They said, “His political advocacy is peaceful, legal, and constitutionally protected in the UK,” adding that IPOB is legally registered in the UK with company number 09862831.
The groups argued that Britain’s economic interests — with an annual trade volume of £6.5bn with Nigeria — cannot override its human-rights obligations. They said the UK’s global reputation is at risk because “silence here weakens UK moral authority in future human-rights cases”.
The activists asked the UK to immediately issue a public statement raising concerns about Kanu’s unlawful rendition, alleged trial under a repealed law, Nigeria’s refusal to obey the 2022 Court of Appeal decision, and alleged fabricated evidence in the judgment.
They also requested that the UK demand Nigeria’s compliance with the appellate judgment, and provide full consular support — including medical access and monitoring of Kanu’s detention conditions.
Other demands include a parliamentary inquiry into the UK government’s conduct regarding Kanu’s rendition and detention, and a review of possible sanctions under the UK Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations (Magnitsky model) against officials involved in the alleged rendition, torture, suppression of court rulings, and fabrication of evidence.
The statement concluded, “We reject the narrative that this is a Nigerian internal matter. When a British citizen is abducted abroad, tortured,
tried under a repealed statute,
denied the benefit of a binding appellate acquittal, and convicted on fabricated claims — it becomes an international matter and a test of UK values.
“The silence of the United Kingdom – custodian of Magna Carta and birthplace of modern human rights law — is deeply troubling. It sends a dangerous message that realpolitik can override the rights of its own citizens, and that fair trial standards are negotiable depending on who is involved. This injustice will not be allowed to stand. Silence is complicity. The UK must act.”
