Kanu’s imprisonment in Nigeria sparks controversy in the UK

The country’s Foreign Affairs Committee has criticized the United Kingdom Government for not helping Nnamdi Kanu, a British national who has been dragged into Nigeria without his will since June 2021. The report from the Committee was released while the jailed IPOB leader’s health at an Abuja facility run by the Department of State Services was getting worse.

The UK government is failing to prevent “Abductor states from weaponizing the citizenship of British nationals for geopolitical ends,” according to a report just released by the Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC).

The report, which Saturday Sun obtained, was based on information provided by the family of Kanu, who is believed to have been kidnapped and tortured in Kenya by Nigerian security forces before being transported to Nigeria via extraordinary rendition in June 2021, where he has been held ever since.

Kanu’s special attorney, Alloy Ejimakor, said that the report’s release was timed because the family of his client was due to file an appeal against the UK High Court’s ruling that the FCDO could legally avoid determining whether Mr. Kanu had been the subject of extraordinary rendition.

The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) should assume that the case will not be decided in accordance with international standards and should respond accordingly where, as in Mr. Kanu’s case, there is a UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Opinion that a detention of a UK citizen is illegal. As a matter of policy, the government ought to encourage adoption of the Opinion by the general public (see “Conclusions and recommendations,” paragraph 4). The report adds that the UK government has not responded to the UNWGAD’s clear determination that Mr. Kanu has been the victim of arbitrary imprisonment in the instance of Mr. Kanu (footnote 31).

The government should formalize and provide guidelines over the next 12 months detailing standards for figuring out whether a UK citizen’s imprisonment by a foreign state qualifies as arbitrary. Then, based on the predetermined standards, a review of all UK nationals arrested abroad should be conducted. The classification of the case internally, during conversations with the family, and, if applicable, publicly should be based on the conclusions on the nature of the detention (‘Conclusions and recommendations,’ paragraph 2). The Kanu family backs this suggestion since it has come to light via Mr. Kanu’s judicial review challenge that the UK government has no set policy on British citizens who are the victim of extraordinary rendition overseas.

Although they have had regular contact with the FCDO, the report acknowledged Mr. Kanu’s family’s worries that “this might not have been forthcoming had their legal representation not requested it” (paragraph 75).

The committee also recommended that the UK government start the process within the next 12 months to create the position of Director for Arbitrary and Complex Detentions, whose duties would include “coordinating the UK’s response to the multilateral efforts to address state hostage taking and arbitrary detention, providing a point of contact for families, convening a cross-government response, and coordinating the UK’s response to certain cases.” A direct line to the Prime Minister should be available to the position holder.

Kingsley, the younger brother of Kanu, who spoke on the family’s behalf, said they had been urging the UK government to take more decisive action to save their brother.

The administration has repeatedly assured us that the course of action it is following is the best one, refusing to even make a conclusion, either in private or in public, on whether Nnamdi has been the victim of extraordinary rendition. We are pleased that the FAC has questioned the FCDO’s overarching strategy of “quiet diplomacy” and criticized the degree of protection the FCDO currently provides to British people jailed overseas. We are hoping that the FCDO would examine the suggestions and change how it is handling my brother’s case.

Kanu’s family is being defended by John Halford and Shirin Marker of Bindmans LLP, Tatyana Eatwell of Doughty Street Chambers, Charlotte Kilroy QC of Blackstone Chambers, and Shirin Marker of Bindmans LLP.

The development, according to Ejimakor, had given the overall efforts aimed at releasing Kanu from custody and thwarting any further attempts to prosecute him additional impetus.

In the meantime, Kanu’s health was a source of concern, according to Maxwell Opara, a member of the IPOB leader’s legal team, who made the revelation yesterday.

Opara wrote: “I just returned from the DSS Abuja headquarters where I had gone to see Mazi Nnamdi Kanu (MNK) and his sister. MNK looked really exhausted when they took him from the solitary confinement facility where they were keeping him to the waiting room where I was waiting to see him, so I inquired as to how he was feeling. He frequently felt like throwing up and complained about physical weakness and chest discomfort. He interrupted our conversation as we were still talking, raced to the bathroom, and began throwing up in front of me. I jumped in and briefly held him.

Ejimakor revealed that Kanu’s legal team was pursuing a Mandamus lawsuit in order to compel the government to