BRITAIN TO BLAME: London’s Role in the Abduction and Extraordinary Rendition of Nnamdi Kanu

• The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has blamed the British government for its alleged complicity in the abduction of its leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, in Kenya and his subsequent extraordinary rendition to Nigeria.

The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has blamed the British government for its alleged complicity in the abduction of its leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, in Kenya and his subsequent extraordinary rendition to Nigeria, accusing Britain of contributing to the historical and structural injustices against Biafra and its people.

The group also accused the British government of diplomatic silence and inaction over what it described as the continued violation of Kanu’s fundamental rights, despite his British citizenship.

IPOB made the declarations in a press statement issued by its spokesperson and Media and Publicity Secretary, Comrade Emma Powerful, in Abuja, in response to recent declarations by Bishop Godfrey Onah.

The group, operating under the supreme leadership of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, said Bishop Onah’s intervention reinforced its longstanding position that Britain’s colonial legacy and subsequent diplomatic posture had contributed significantly to the structural imbalances and historical injustices inflicted on Biafra.

According to IPOB, the circumstances surrounding Kanu’s continued persecution reflect what it described as the continuation of British geopolitical strategies that originated during the 1967 Nigerian Civil War, when foreign economic interests allegedly took precedence over justice and the welfare of the people.

IPOB ACCUSES BRITAIN OF COMPLICITY IN KANU’S EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION

The organisation specifically blamed Britain for what it described as complicity in Kanu’s abduction in Kenya and extraordinary rendition to Nigeria.

It also accused the British government of disregarding United Nations calls for Kanu’s release, the disobedience of appellate court orders discharging him, his conviction under what IPOB described as repealed laws, and the application of harsh legal measures against him.

IPOB maintained that these developments were not isolated incidents but reflected a broader pattern of political and legal actions rooted in the historical relationship between Britain and Nigeria.

The group argued that the British government’s historical involvement in Nigeria’s political structure continued to influence the treatment of Biafra and its people.

GROUP ACCUSES BBC, WESTERN ALLIES OF MEDIA AND DIGITAL WARFARE

IPOB further accused Britain of participating in what it described as digital and media warfare against its leader.

The organisation claimed that a simple search for “Nnamdi Kanu” on international search engines, including Google, produces an overwhelming dominance of what it characterised as biased and anti-Nnamdi Kanu propaganda from the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and other Western allies.

According to the group, such media narratives systematically bury information about the experiences of Biafrans, suppress reports of alleged atrocities against them and create a misleading public perception intended to justify Kanu’s treatment.

IPOB described the situation as an organised effort to influence international public opinion and prevent the wider world from understanding the circumstances surrounding its leader’s case and the Biafran struggle.

IPOB SAYS SOKOTO PRISON TRANSFER WAS A POLITICAL STRATEGY

The group also addressed the political circumstances surrounding Kanu’s trial, sentencing and subsequent transfer to Sokoto Prison.

IPOB described the transfer as a calculated political manoeuvre allegedly orchestrated by what it called a Yoruba-led APC political arrangement.

According to the organisation, the objective was to deliver its leader to the Caliphate as an ethnic trophy in an attempt to secure Northern political support and votes against political opponents, including former Vice-President Alhaji Atiku Abubakar.

However, IPOB maintained that the strategy had backfired, claiming that discerning Fulani leaders and sections of the Northern population were angered by the development and had rejected being used as instruments in what it described as childish and desperate political calculations.

The group further argued that such political manoeuvres were taking place while Nigeria continued to grapple with economic difficulties and broader national challenges.

IPOB CHALLENGES JUSTICE OMOTOSHO’S REMARKS ABOUT NNAMDI KANU

IPOB also criticised the judicial narrative surrounding Kanu’s trial, particularly remarks attributed to Justice Omotosho that Kanu “hates the North with a passion.”

The organisation described the statement as a deliberate distortion of its leader’s position and maintained that Kanu does not hate any ethnic group in Nigeria.

According to IPOB, anyone familiar with Kanu’s broadcasts would understand that his struggle is not directed against any ethnic nationality but against what it described as a corrupt neo-colonial political structure.

The group argued that the structure was designed to exploit the blood and resources of ordinary citizens for the political survival of the country’s ruling elite.

It insisted that Kanu’s position should not be interpreted as hostility towards the North or any other part of Nigeria, maintaining that his criticism is directed at what it considers an unjust political and economic system.

IPOB HAILS BISHOP ONAH’S INTERVENTION

The organisation described Bishop Godfrey Onah’s intervention as significant, saying it represented only a small indication of the growing support for the peaceful emancipation of Biafra.

IPOB said the bishop’s declarations highlighted the historical consequences of foreign exploitation, economic blockade and military violence, which it argued had contributed to the continued subjugation of its region and, by extension, Nigeria as a whole.

The group maintained that the peaceful emancipation of Biafra, championed by Kanu, remained its objective despite the political, legal and international challenges confronting the movement.

GROUP QUESTIONS BRITISH GOVERNMENT’S SILENCE DESPITE KANU’S CITIZENSHIP

IPOB expressed particular concern over the British government’s response to Kanu’s continued detention, pointing out that its leader holds British citizenship.

The organisation accused the UK government of choosing what it described as active media suppression, diplomatic silence and inaction while his fundamental rights were allegedly being disregarded.

It argued that Britain’s failure to take a stronger position on the matter raised questions about its commitment to protecting the rights of its citizens and addressing the historical injustices associated with its colonial involvement in Nigeria.

IPOB insisted that neither international media narratives, judicial actions, political negotiations nor alleged international collaboration would prevent what it described as the eventual triumph of justice.

The organisation concluded by reaffirming its commitment to the peaceful emancipation of Biafra and its support for Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, declaring that no amount of political manoeuvring or international pressure would stop the struggle.

The statement was signed by Comrade Emma Powerful, Spokesperson and Media and Publicity Secretary of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB). IPOB BLAMES BRITAIN FOR NNAMDI KANU’S ABDUCTION, EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AND CONTINUED DETENTION, ACCUSES UK OF MEDIA SUPPRESSION

The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has blamed the British government for its alleged complicity in the abduction of its leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, in Kenya and his subsequent extraordinary rendition to Nigeria, accusing Britain of contributing to the historical and structural injustices against Biafra and its people.

The group also accused the British government of diplomatic silence and inaction over what it described as the continued violation of Kanu’s fundamental rights, despite his British citizenship.

IPOB made the declarations in a press statement issued by its spokesperson and Media and Publicity Secretary, Comrade Emma Powerful, in Abuja, in response to recent declarations by Bishop Godfrey Onah.

The group, operating under the supreme leadership of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, said Bishop Onah’s intervention reinforced its longstanding position that Britain’s colonial legacy and subsequent diplomatic posture had contributed significantly to the structural imbalances and historical injustices inflicted on Biafra.

According to IPOB, the circumstances surrounding Kanu’s continued persecution reflect what it described as the continuation of British geopolitical strategies that originated during the 1967 Nigerian Civil War, when foreign economic interests allegedly took precedence over justice and the welfare of the people.

IPOB ACCUSES BRITAIN OF COMPLICITY IN KANU’S EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION

The organisation specifically blamed Britain for what it described as complicity in Kanu’s abduction in Kenya and extraordinary rendition to Nigeria.

It also accused the British government of disregarding United Nations calls for Kanu’s release, the disobedience of appellate court orders discharging him, his conviction under what IPOB described as repealed laws, and the application of harsh legal measures against him.

IPOB maintained that these developments were not isolated incidents but reflected a broader pattern of political and legal actions rooted in the historical relationship between Britain and Nigeria.

The group argued that the British government’s historical involvement in Nigeria’s political structure continued to influence the treatment of Biafra and its people.

GROUP ACCUSES BBC, WESTERN ALLIES OF MEDIA AND DIGITAL WARFARE

IPOB further accused Britain of participating in what it described as digital and media warfare against its leader.

The organisation claimed that a simple search for “Nnamdi Kanu” on international search engines, including Google, produces an overwhelming dominance of what it characterised as biased and anti-Nnamdi Kanu propaganda from the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and other Western allies.

According to the group, such media narratives systematically bury information about the experiences of Biafrans, suppress reports of alleged atrocities against them and create a misleading public perception intended to justify Kanu’s treatment.

IPOB described the situation as an organised effort to influence international public opinion and prevent the wider world from understanding the circumstances surrounding its leader’s case and the Biafran struggle.

IPOB SAYS SOKOTO PRISON TRANSFER WAS A POLITICAL STRATEGY

The group also addressed the political circumstances surrounding Kanu’s trial, sentencing and subsequent transfer to Sokoto Prison.

IPOB described the transfer as a calculated political manoeuvre allegedly orchestrated by what it called a Yoruba-led APC political arrangement.

According to the organisation, the objective was to deliver its leader to the Caliphate as an ethnic trophy in an attempt to secure Northern political support and votes against political opponents, including former Vice-President Alhaji Atiku Abubakar.

However, IPOB maintained that the strategy had backfired, claiming that discerning Fulani leaders and sections of the Northern population were angered by the development and had rejected being used as instruments in what it described as childish and desperate political calculations.

The group further argued that such political manoeuvres were taking place while Nigeria continued to grapple with economic difficulties and broader national challenges.

IPOB CHALLENGES JUSTICE OMOTOSHO’S REMARKS ABOUT NNAMDI KANU

IPOB also criticised the judicial narrative surrounding Kanu’s trial, particularly remarks attributed to Justice Omotosho that Kanu “hates the North with a passion.”

The organisation described the statement as a deliberate distortion of its leader’s position and maintained that Kanu does not hate any ethnic group in Nigeria.

According to IPOB, anyone familiar with Kanu’s broadcasts would understand that his struggle is not directed against any ethnic nationality but against what it described as a corrupt neo-colonial political structure.

The group argued that the structure was designed to exploit the blood and resources of ordinary citizens for the political survival of the country’s ruling elite.

It insisted that Kanu’s position should not be interpreted as hostility towards the North or any other part of Nigeria, maintaining that his criticism is directed at what it considers an unjust political and economic system.

IPOB HAILS BISHOP ONAH’S INTERVENTION

The organisation described Bishop Godfrey Onah’s intervention as significant, saying it represented only a small indication of the growing support for the peaceful emancipation of Biafra.

IPOB said the bishop’s declarations highlighted the historical consequences of foreign exploitation, economic blockade and military violence, which it argued had contributed to the continued subjugation of its region and, by extension, Nigeria as a whole.

The group maintained that the peaceful emancipation of Biafra, championed by Kanu, remained its objective despite the political, legal and international challenges confronting the movement.

GROUP QUESTIONS BRITISH GOVERNMENT’S SILENCE DESPITE KANU’S CITIZENSHIP

IPOB expressed particular concern over the British government’s response to Kanu’s continued detention, pointing out that its leader holds British citizenship.

The organisation accused the UK government of choosing what it described as active media suppression, diplomatic silence and inaction while his fundamental rights were allegedly being disregarded.

It argued that Britain’s failure to take a stronger position on the matter raised questions about its commitment to protecting the rights of its citizens and addressing the historical injustices associated with its colonial involvement in Nigeria.

IPOB insisted that neither international media narratives, judicial actions, political negotiations nor alleged international collaboration would prevent what it described as the eventual triumph of justice.

The organisation concluded by reaffirming its commitment to the peaceful emancipation of Biafra and its support for Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, declaring that no amount of political manoeuvring or international pressure would stop the struggle.

The statement was signed by Comrade Emma Powerful, Spokesperson and Media and Publicity Secretary of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB).