IPOB accuses Britain of complicity in Kanu’s rendition
IPOB accuses Britain of complicity in Kanu’s rendition
The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has accused the British government of complicity in the alleged persecution of its detained leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, particularly his abduction in Kenya and extraordinary rendition to Nigeria.Nigerian sports news
The group also accused Britain of maintaining diplomatic silence over what it described as persistent violations of Kanu’s fundamental rights, despite his British citizenship.
IPOB made the allegations in a statement issued by its Media and Publicity Secretary, Comrade Emma Powerful, following recent interventions by Bishop Godfrey Onah on historical injustices associated with Nigeria’s colonial experience and the treatment of the South-East.
The pro-Biafra group said Britain’s historical involvement in Nigeria’s political and economic affairs had contributed to what it described as structural injustices against Biafra and its people.Follow Politics
It alleged that Britain’s failure to intervene over Kanu’s rendition, its response to calls for his release and what it described as the disregard of previous appellate court decisions reflected a continuation of colonial-era policies that prioritised strategic interests over justice.
IPOB also accused the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and other Western media organisations of promoting what it described as an anti-Kanu narrative.
It claimed that online searches for Kanu’s name predominantly returned negative reports, alleging that such coverage had contributed to what it called a distorted international perception of his agitation and the circumstances surrounding his prosecution.
The group further alleged that Kanu’s transfer to a prison in Sokoto was politically motivated, claiming it was an attempt by the All Progressives Congress-led Federal Government to use his detention as a political bargaining tool to secure support in the North ahead of future elections.
It, however, claimed that the alleged political calculation had backfired and cautioned against using Northern Nigerians as instruments in what it described as divisive political manoeuvring.
On Kanu’s trial, IPOB faulted the characterisation of its leader as someone who hates the North, insisting that his agitation was directed against what it called a corrupt neo-colonial political structure, rather than any ethnic or religious group.
The group specifically challenged a remark attributed to Justice Omotosho that Kanu hated the North with a passion, describing it as a distortion of his broadcasts and political message.
According to IPOB, Kanu’s struggle is against a system it alleges exploits the resources and sacrifices of ordinary Nigerians for the benefit of the political elite.
It maintained that Bishop Onah’s intervention reflected growing recognition of the historical grievances of Biafrans and the need to address the issues underlying the agitation.
The group insisted that what it described as media manipulation and judicial and political manoeuvring would not derail its campaign for the peaceful emancipation of Biafra.
IPOB called on the British government to break its silence and take a more decisive position on Kanu’s case, arguing that its alleged inaction, despite his British citizenship, raised questions about its commitment to protecting the rights of its citizens abroad.
