Harvard trained attorney, Emeka Ugwuonye, has revealed the role of the British government in the rendition of the Nnamdi Kanu, the convicted leader of the proscribed Indigenous People Of Biafra (IPOB), from Kenya.
The founder of Due Process Advocates (DPA), in a post on his Eculaw official Facebook page, said that trouble started for Kanu after he was invited by the British government along side his former deputy, Uche Okafor-Mefor for questioning.
He said Mefor attended and denied any involvement in violence, but Kanu fled the UK, traveling to Germany and finally to Kenya where he was later arrested.
Ugwuonye said: “The British government faced significant pressure from Nigeria to take action against Nnamdi Kanu, following a formal request for his extradition. However, as Kanu was a British citizen and his activities were also considered criminal under English law, the UK government preferred to prosecute him domestically. This decision was further complicated by Britain’s desire to avoid inflaming tensions with the Igbo people, given the historical criticism it received for its role against Biafra during the Nigerian Civil War.
“Despite this reluctance, Britain ultimately moved against Kanu’s organization, IPOB, and summoned both him and his deputy, Uche Mefor, for questioning. Mefor attended and denied any involvement in violence, but Kanu fled the UK, traveling to Germany and finally to Kenya. British intelligence tracked his movements and, while content he was no longer on British soil, had assured Nigeria of its cooperation. To honor this commitment, the UK informed Nigerian authorities of Kanu’s location and facilitated contact with their Kenyan counterparts for a rendition operation.
“Crucially, Britain secured an important assurance from Nigeria: Kanu was to be given a lawful trial and would not be executed extra-judicially. British officials reasoned that making a martyr of Kanu would only strengthen the Biafran myth and cause. They were also concerned about the domestic public backlash should their involvement in the extra-judicial killing of a British citizen come to light. This agreement is why the Nigerian government did not “neutralize” Kanu when it had the chance.
“In the end, the British position proved effective. The trial and subsequent imprisonment of Nnamdi Kanu have dealt a far greater blow to IPOB and the Biafran agitation than his killing would have. With Kanu in prison, the movement faces new challenges, and the Nigerian public is increasingly confronted with the atrocities committed by IPOB”.
