By John Attah
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 controversial abduction in Kenya and rendition to Nigeria.
The group also faulted Britain’s alleged silence over what it described as persistent violations of Kanu’s fundamental rights, insisting that his British citizenship should compel the UK government to take a stronger interest in his case.
In a press statement issued by its Media and Publicity Secretary, Comrade Emma Powerful, IPOB alleged that Britain’s historical involvement in Nigeria’s political affairs had contributed to longstanding injustices against Biafrans.
The statement followed recent comments by Bishop Godfrey Onah on historical injustices linked to Nigeria’s colonial experience and the treatment of the South-East.
IPOB argued that Britain’s failure to intervene over Kanu’s rendition, despite international calls for his release and previous appellate court decisions, reflected what it described as a continuation of colonial-era policies that placed strategic interests above justice.
“Britain cannot continue to claim commitment to human rights while maintaining diplomatic silence over the alleged violations of the rights of one of its citizens,” the group said.
The separatist organisation also accused the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and other Western media outlets of promoting what it called an anti-Kanu narrative.
It alleged that international media coverage had presented a distorted picture of Kanu’s agitation, claiming that online searches for his name predominantly returned negative reports.
IPOB further questioned the circumstances surrounding Kanu’s transfer to Sokoto prison, alleging that the move was politically motivated by the APC-led Federal Government.
The group claimed that his continued detention and transfer were part of a political calculation aimed at securing Northern support ahead of future elections, although it provided no evidence to substantiate the allegation.
On Kanu’s trial, IPOB rejected the characterisation of its leader as someone who hates the North, faulting remarks attributed to Justice Omotosho that Kanu hated the region with a passion.
It maintained that Kanu’s agitation was directed at what it described as a corrupt neo-colonial political structure, rather than any ethnic or religious group.
According to IPOB, “The struggle is against a system that exploits the resources and sacrifices of ordinary Nigerians for the benefit of the political elite.”
The group said Bishop Onah’s intervention reflected growing recognition of the historical grievances of Biafrans and the need to address the issues fuelling agitation in the South-East.
It insisted that alleged media manipulation, judicial actions and political manoeuvring would not derail what it described as the peaceful emancipation of Biafra.
IPOB consequently called on the British government to break its silence and take a more decisive position on Kanu’s case, warning that continued inaction could raise questions about Britain’s commitment to protecting the rights of its citizens abroad.
The group’s allegations against the British government, Nigerian authorities and Western media were contained in its statement.
