Nigerian lawyer exposes Kenya of complicity in Nnamdi Kanu’s abduction

DDM News

An Abuja-based lawyer, Christopher Chidera, has accused the Kenyan government of involvement in Nnamdi Kanu’s abduction.

According to Diaspora digital media (DDM), he claimed that the Kenyan government played a role in the Federal Government of Nigeria’s unlawful rendition of the Biafra agitator.

The human rights activist alleged that Kenya failed in its duty to protect Kanu from abduction and torture.

In a statement issued in Abuja on Monday, the lawyer detailed Kenya’s violations of legal and international obligations.

He accused Kenya of disregarding its Constitution, the Extradition Act, and international treaties such as the ICCPR.

The statement was titled, ‘How the Government of Kenya Failed in Their Duty to Protect Nnamdi Kanu.’

The lawyer asserted that the incident tarnished Kenya’s reputation as a rule-of-law state within the Commonwealth.

He claimed that Kanu’s rights were severely violated through Kenya’s alleged involvement in the illegal rendition.

He outlined the events leading to Kanu’s abduction in June 2021 at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport in Nairobi.

Kanu, a dual citizen of Nigeria and the United Kingdom, entered Kenya using his British passport.

On June 19, 2021, he was seized by armed men believed to be Kenyan and Nigerian security operatives.

He was taken without a warrant or judicial order, which violated Kenyan constitutional protections.

Article 29 of Kenya’s Constitution guarantees personal freedom and prohibits arbitrary detention, torture, and inhumane treatment.

The lawyer argued that Kanu’s abduction was a direct breach of these constitutional provisions.

He added that Kenya’s Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act of 1968 requires formal legal procedures for extradition.

No formal extradition request was made, and no judicial review was conducted before Kanu’s removal.

The lawyer suggested that Kenya’s actions indicated an extrajudicial operation outside the bounds of legal protocols.

Kanu was detained for eight days in a secret location near Jomo Kenyatta International Airport.

He reportedly heard aircraft noises, confirming that he was held near the airport perimeter.

During his detention, Kanu was chained, beaten, and subjected to inhumane conditions.

He was denied access to sanitation facilities and prevented from taking his prescribed medications.

He suffered extreme mistreatment, including physical abuse that left him unconscious at one point.

Article 25 of the Kenyan Constitution prohibits torture and inhumane treatment, making these actions unlawful.

As a signatory to the ICCPR, Kenya is bound to prevent torture and arbitrary detention.

The lawyer argued that Kenya’s conduct breached Article 7 and Article 9 of the ICCPR.

On June 27, 2021, Kanu was forcibly handed over to Nigerian officials at the airport.

He was flown to Abuja on a private jet without proper legal procedures.

Kenya bypassed its own immigration and extradition protocols in facilitating Kanu’s transfer.

This act directly violated Section 6(3) of Kenya’s Extradition Act, which mandates judicial oversight for extradition cases.

The London Scheme for Extradition within the Commonwealth requires formal requests and legal hearings before any transfer.

Kanu’s secessionist advocacy could qualify as a political offense, potentially barring his extradition under Commonwealth rules.

The lawyer argued that Kenya deliberately circumvented this framework to hand Kanu over to Nigeria.

Kenyan officials have denied any involvement in Kanu’s arrest or rendition.

The Kenyan High Commissioner to Nigeria claimed that there were no records of Kanu’s detention or extradition.

This contradicts evidence, including Kanu’s passport stamps, confirming his presence in Kenya before his abduction.

The Kenyan Constitution’s Article 238(2) mandates that national security actions comply with the rule of law and human rights.

The government’s failure to protect Kanu, according to the lawyer, undermines this constitutional duty.

Kenya’s actions also contravened Article 13 of the ICCPR, which prohibits arbitrary expulsion of lawfully present foreigners.

Kanu had entered Kenya legally but was expelled without any legal process.

Kenya is also bound by the 1984 Convention Against Torture, which prohibits extradition to countries where torture is likely.

Reports of Kanu’s past mistreatment in Nigeria should have prevented his forced return under international law.

Kenya’s collaboration with Nigeria ignored its obligations under international human rights treaties.

The Mutual Assistance Within the Commonwealth Act requires legal compliance in international cooperation.

The lawyer claimed that Kenya’s actions undermined its commitments under this act.

He insisted that Kenya either actively participated in or allowed Kanu’s illegal rendition.

By failing to initiate formal extradition proceedings, Kenya facilitated a breach of international and domestic laws.

The official denials, despite strong evidence, indicate a deliberate effort to avoid accountability.

The lawyer argued that Kenya’s actions may have been politically or diplomatically motivated.

This incident, he added, significantly damaged Kenya’s reputation in the global legal community.

He called for accountability and adherence to international legal norms in handling such cases.

The Nigerian government has yet to respond to the new allegations made by the lawyer.

Kanu remains in detention in Nigeria amid ongoing legal battles over his extradition and trial.

His supporters continue to demand his release, citing violations of his human rights.

The case has sparked significant diplomatic and legal debates within and beyond Africa.

The lawyer urged Kenya to address its role in the incident and uphold legal principles.

He called on international human rights organizations to investigate Kanu’s abduction and seek justice.

He emphasized that such violations set a dangerous precedent for international legal cooperation.

The statement has intensified calls for accountability from both Kenyan and Nigerian authorities.

Legal experts argue that Kenya’s handling of the case raises concerns about its commitment to the rule of law.

The controversy surrounding Kanu’s rendition continues to fuel tensions between the Nigerian government and IPOB supporters.

Observers believe that the case will have lasting implications for international human rights enforcement.

The Kenyan government has yet to issue an official statement addressing the lawyer’s accusations.

Diplomatic observers warn that the case could strain relations between Kenya, Nigeria, and other Commonwealth nations.

Human rights groups have expressed concern over the growing trend of extrajudicial renditions across Africa.

They argue that Kanu’s case highlights the need for stronger legal safeguards against arbitrary detentions.

The lawyer concluded by reiterating the urgent need for justice and legal reforms to prevent future violations.

For Diaspora Digital Media Updates click on Whatsapp, or Telegram. For eyewitness accounts/ reports/ articles, write to: citizenreports@diasporadigitalmedia.com. Follow us on X (Fomerly Twitter) or Facebook