October 8 hearing at the Federal High Court in Abuja once again highlighted Nigeria’s
disregard for judicial independence and due process.
Despite clear medical reports indicating Kanu’s deteriorating health, the court dismissed legitimate concerns raised by his legal team, led
by Barrister Alloy Ejimakor and others and adjourned the case. Observers, noted the visible
frailty of the defendant and the court’s unwillingness to entertain bail or independent medical
evaluation.
Kanu’s most recent court session marked yet another low point in Nigeria’s justice system.
Despite mounting pressure from international observers, the presiding judge refused to grant bail
or permit an independent medical examination, even after reports of heart complications and
suspected internal bleeding. The Nigerian Medical Association’s (NMA) involvement, reportedly
under government influence, further complicated the credibility of health assessments.
Biafra Republic Government In Exile (BRGIE), International and domestic human rights groups,
International Society for Civil Liberties and Rule of Law (Intersociety) have denounced this
continued persecution as an affront to human dignity and a blatant violation of Nigeria’s
constitutional and treaty obligations.
The Biafra struggle is rooted in Nigeria’s unresolved civil war legacy (1967–1970), during which
over five million Biafrans mostly Igbos perished in what historians and observers have
described as genocide. Decades later, structural inequalities, state marginalization, and
systematic underrepresentation of the Southeast region in federal governance revived calls for
self-determination.
Mazi Nnamdi Kanu emerged as the most visible symbol of this renewed agitation through his
media platform, Radio Biafra, founded in London. His rhetoric, resonated deeply with millions
who felt politically alienated and economically oppressed.
October 2015 - Kanu was first arrested in Lagos by the Department of State Services (DSS) upon
his return from the U.K. He was detained without trial for over a year despite multiple court
orders granting bail.
April 2017 - Released on bail under stringent conditions, he fled the country following a military
raid on his family compound in Afara-Ukwu, Abia State, during Operation Python Dance II,
which led to several civilian deaths.
June 2021 - In a controversial operation, Kanu was kidnapped in Nairobi, Kenya, and illegally
rendered to Nigeria a move widely condemned by legal experts and rights organizations,
including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
2022–2024 - Multiple Nigerian courts affirmed his detention as unlawful, including an October
2022 judgment by the Court of Appeal, which acquitted him of all charges and ordered his
release. However, the Nigerian government, under the administration of President Bola Ahmed
Tinubu, defied the ruling.
2025: Continued adjournments, restricted family and lawyer access, and deteriorating health
conditions characterized his confinement at the DSS headquarters in Abuja.
EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AND INTERNATIONAL LAW VIOLATIONS
The abduction and extraordinary rendition of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu from Kenya to Nigeria in June
2021 remain one of the most egregious breaches of international law committed by a state in
Africa’s recent history.
Despite being a British citizen traveling on a U.K. passport, Kanu was unlawfully apprehended
in Nairobi, detained for several days without charge, and forcibly transported to Nigeria without
any formal extradition proceedings.
This act contravened multiple provisions of international law:
Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which guarantees
liberty and protection from arbitrary arrest or detention.
Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention Against Torture (CAT), prohibiting rendition to a state where
torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment is likely.
The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR), Article 12, which safeguards
against arbitrary expulsion or forced repatriation.
The kidnap and forceful rendition of Nnamdi Kanu from Kenya to Nigeria in June 2021 remains
one of the most egregious violations of international law in modern African jurisprudence.
Legal experts including the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention have described the
operation as “state-sponsored kidnapping”, executed outside any judicial warrant or extradition
treaty process.
Though the Kenyan government initially denied involvement, substantial evidence later emerged
from Kenyan human rights lawyers and eyewitnesses confirming that Kanu was unlawfully
detained and handed over to Nigerian operatives in a covert joint operation that circumvented
Kenya’s extradition protocols.
In a landmark judgment, the Kenyan High Court on June 24, 2025, ruled that Kanu’s capture and
transfer were “illegal, unconstitutional, and a violation of his fundamental rights.” The court not
only condemned the act as a flagrant abuse of the rule of law but also ordered the Kenyan
government to pay 10 million Kenyan shillings in damages to Kanu for the illegal abduction and
deportation.
The case, officially titled Kanu (Suing on behalf of and Representing the Subject Nwannekaenvi
Nnamdi Kenny Okwu-Kanu) v. Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Interior & 4 others [2025] KEHC
8967 (KLR), is accessible via Kenya Law Official Judgment.
This ruling serves as a powerful international indictment against the Nigerian state’s conduct,
affirming that Kanu’s rendition constituted an act of extraordinary rendition, a grave breach of
the U.N. Convention Against Torture, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and
the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
Despite the clear pronouncements of the Kenyan judiciary, the Nigerian government has
persistently refused to comply with multiple international legal obligations, continuing to detain
Kanu without due process. Such defiance not only undermines Nigeria’s credibility within the
global community but also exemplifies the deeper systemic rot where the instruments of justice
are weaponized against the very citizens they are meant to protect.
British Government’s Silence
Despite Kanu’s U.K. citizenship, Britain has been criticized for maintaining diplomatic
quietness, raising questions about its adherence to the British Consular Assistance Code and
Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
In contrast, the U.S. and European Union have previously intervened in similar cases of illegal
rendition, underscoring the selective application of international justice when African citizens are
involved.
Judiciary Under Political Pressure
Since 2015, Nigeria’s judiciary has come under consistent political influence in the handling of
Kanu’s case. Frequent judge transfers, unexplained adjournments, and disregard for appellate
rulings all point to executive interference.
The 2022 Court of Appeal judgment that discharged Kanu of all terrorism-related charges was
suspended following a politically motivated stay of execution obtained by the Attorney General’s
Office—a maneuver inconsistent with legal precedent.
Justice Binta Nyako’s courtroom became a stage for legal irregularities, with defense lawyers
frequently denied access to case files and evidence withheld by the DSS under “national
security” pretexts.
Denial of Bail and Presumption of Guilt
Despite being unconvicted, Kanu has been detained in solitary confinement since 2021. The
repeated denial of bail violates:
Section 35(1) of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution (as amended), which guarantees liberty pending
trial.
Article 9 of the ICCPR and Article 6 of the ACHPR, which affirm the right to be tried within a
reasonable time or be released.
Judicial proceedings suggest a presumption of guilt rather than innocence—contrary to both
domestic and international standards.
Conditions of Detention
Multiple credible reports from Kanu’s lawyers and relatives indicate that he is detained under
severe and degrading conditions at the DSS Headquarters in Abuja. He has been held in a small
cell, denied sunlight, family contact, and spiritual visits. Food quality and sanitation are
reportedly poor, contributing to deteriorating health.
Evidence of Torture and Neglect
In 2022, Amnesty International and Intersociety Nigeria documented physical injuries and
untreated medical conditions consistent with torture.His legal team reported incidents of sleep deprivation, denial of reading materials, and restricted
communication practices that meet the U.N. definition of psychological torture under the
Istanbul Protocol.
Repeated medical requests for an independent cardiac examination were ignored.
On October 8, 2025, Kanu appeared visibly frail, yet the court declined to order medical relief.
Nigerian Medical Association (NMA)
The NMA’s involvement in providing medical reports under state supervision has raised doubts
about impartiality. BRGIE has called for a neutral, internationally supervised medical evaluation
in accordance with Article 10 of the ICCPR and the U.N. Mandela Rules on Prisoner Welfare.
Institutional Discrimination
The handling of Nnamdi Kanu’s case exemplifies Nigeria’s deep-rooted ethnic bias, especially
toward the Igbo ethnic group. Despite being one of the nation’s three largest groups, Igbos face
systemic marginalization in federal appointments, military promotions, and judicial
representation.
Kanu’s prosecution and prolonged detention are viewed not merely as a criminal matter but as a
reflection of the Nigerian state’s fear of Igbo political assertion.
Comparative Impunity
While Kanu’s peaceful advocacy is criminalized, violent herders and terror-linked groups in the
North receive amnesty or reintegration. The double standard is evident in:The release of repentant Boko Haram militants under “rehabilitation” schemes.
The continued detention of peaceful IPOB members without trial.
This two-tier system erodes national unity and signals institutionalized prejudice.
Religious Overtones
Predominantly Christian Biafrans without any doubt, believe and know Nigeria’s governance as
religiously biased, especially under northern-dominated administrations. The silence of many
Islamic clerics and northern politicians regarding Kanu’s illegal rendition contrasts sharply with
their defense of northern offenders facing lesser charges.
The court session of October 8, 2025, at the Federal High Court, Abuja, once again laid bare the
entrenched culture of judicial manipulation, ethnic bias, and systemic cruelty that has come to
define Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s trial. What should have been a straightforward hearing on his
deteriorating health and the contentious medical report submitted by the Nigerian Medical
Association (NMA) turned instead into another theatre of oppression - a carefully orchestrated
spectacle of delay and humiliation.
The Federal High Court in Abuja (before Justice James Omotosho) adjourned the hearing in
Nnamdi Kanu’s trial to October 16, 2025, citing that the Nigerian Medical Association (NMA)
had not yet completed its mandated health assessment and report.
The Biafra Republic Government in Exile (BRGIE) calls for the following immediate and strategic actions.
1. Immediate and Unconditional Release of Nnamdi Kanu.
Based on existing court rulings and the UN Working Group’s findings.
2. Independent International Medical Assessment.
Conducted by neutral experts under ICRC or WHO supervision.
3. International Sanctions Against Complicit Nigerian Officials.
Targeted visa bans and asset freezes under Global Magnitsky provisions.
4. Establishment of a US and U.N.-Monitored Inquiry Panel.
To investigate Nigeria’s pattern of extraordinary renditions, torture, and judicial abuses.
