News

Foreign Affairs Committee Urges UK Govt To Intervene In Kanu’s Case

Published

3 years ago

April 14, 2023

Editor

British Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) has asked the United Kingdom Government to intervene in the matter of the Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, who has been incarcerated by Nigeria’s secret police since June 2021.

According to a report by FAC, which was revealed to Vanguard by Kanu’s Special Counsel, Barr Aloy Ejimakor, on Friday, the UK government must act on recommendations that will favour Kanu as a British national.

The report said, “Foreign Affairs Committee issues damning report into the UK government’s failure to assist British nationals abroad as Kanu family appeals High Court judgment on challenge to two years of FCDO hand-wringing

“The Foreign Affairs Committee (“FAC”) has published a damning report, concluding that the UK government is failing to prevent “Abductor states” from “weaponising [the] citizenship of British nationals for geopolitical ends”.

“The report draws on evidence provided by the Kanu family in relation to British national Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (“IPOB”), who was abducted and tortured in Kenya by the Nigerian security forces and subject to extraordinary rendition to Nigeria in June 2021, where he has remained in detention ever since.

“The publication of the report is timely, as the Kanu family are about to appeal against the UK High Court judgment that the FCDO can lawfully evade reaching any conclusion on whether Mr Kanu has been subject to extraordinary rendition.

“The report makes various recommendations to combat the UK government’s failure to effectively assist British nationals like Mr Kanu, who find themselves subject to gross violations of their human rights abroad. The following recommendations are directly relevant to Mr Kanu’s case, though his family are fearful that the proposed policy reforms may come too late to help him.

“The report recommends: Whereas in Mr Kanu’s case – there is a UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Opinion that a detention of a UK citizen is illegal, the FCDO should assume that the case will not be judged in line with international standards and should respond accordingly.

“The Government should as a matter of practice promote public acceptance of the Opinion (‘Conclusions and recommendations’, paragraph 4). The report notes that in Mr Kanu’s case, the UK government has not issued any comment on the UNWGAD’s unequivocal finding that Mr Kanu has been subject to arbitrary detention (footnote 31).

“Within the next 12 months, the Government should formalise and publish guidance outlining criteria for determining whether the detention of a UK national by a foreign state is considered arbitrary. A review should then be carried out of all UK nationals detained overseas according to the established criteria.

“The conclusions on the nature of the detention should be used to classify the case internally, in discussions with the family and, where appropriate, publicly (‘Conclusions and recommendations’, paragraph 2).

“The Kanu family support this recommendation as it has emerged from Mr Kanu’s judicial review challenge that the UK government does not have any specific policy to deal with British nationals subject to extraordinary rendition abroad.

“The FCDO should have a “central repository” for information on cases of arbitrary detention, detailing processes followed and learning gained, and should adopt a “systematic approach to all cases, not simply a sample” (‘Conclusions and recommendations’, paragraph 9). The majority of families who provided evidence towards the FAC on behalf of loved ones detained abroad described a “consistent feeling of a lack of transparency” from the FCDO and “inadequate” communication regarding the FCDO’s efforts to assist their loved ones (paragraph 70).

“The report notes Mr Kanu’s family’s concerns that although they have had regular communication with the FCDO, “this might not have been forthcoming had their legal representation not requested it” (paragraph 75).

“Within the next 12 months, the UK government should undertake appropriate consultation to establish the position of Director for Arbitrary and Complex Detentions, with a mandate including “coordinating the response to certain cases, providing a point of contact for families, convening a cross-government response, and coordinating the UK’s response to the multilateral efforts to address state hostage taking and arbitrary detention with a relentless focus on them. The postholder should have a direct line to the Prime Minister.”

“The presumption that “quiet diplomacy” is always appropriate throughout cases of state detention “is a false one” and the UK Government should use “the strongest possible language to call out” situations of state detention (‘Conclusions and recommendations’, paragraph 19).

“This is particularly notable in Mr Kanu’s case where the FCDO has repeatedly asserted, without any explanation, that the diplomatic approach it is adopting is appropriate, despite there being no tangible improvement in his case after nearly two years.

“The UK Government must use every means at its disposal to secure the basic level of consular access it commits to provide for its nationals and that it is entitled to under international law—regardless of the perceived legitimacy of the charges or rigour of the legal system.”

The report notes that “This could include imposing a political cost (such as delaying negotiation on other bilateral issues), walking out of speeches given by offending countries, or exploring legal options through the various international treaty mechanisms” (‘Conclusions and recommendations’, paragraph 24).

“This is essential in Mr Kanu’s case, where he has received limited and infrequent consular access.

“Reflecting on the report, Kingsley Kanu, the brother of Nnamdi Kanu, said: “For nearly two years now, our family have been pressing the UK government to take more robust action to assist my brother.

“However, the UK government has responded by wringing its hands, procrastinating and offering platitudes rather than action that makes a difference.

“The government has not been willing to even reach a conclusion, privately or publicly, on whether Nnamdi has been subject to extraordinary rendition and has constantly told us that the approach it is taking is the most appropriate one.

“It is satisfying to us that the FAC has called into question the FCDO’s blanket approach of ‘quiet diplomacy’ and has been critical of the level of protection the FCDO currently offers to British nationals detained abroad. We hope that the FCDO will take the recommendations into consideration and will reconsider its approach to my brother’s case in light of them.”

It disclosed that Mr Kanu’s family is represented by John Halford and Shirin Marker of Bindmans LLP, together with Charlotte Kilroy QC of Blackstone Chambers and Tatyana Eatwell of Doughty Street Chambers.

Ms Marker said, “The FAC’s report is a damning indictment of the government’s efforts to assist British nationals subject to serious violations abroad and unfortunately reflects the experience of Mr Kanu’s family in trying to engage the FCDO in his case. We welcome the FAC’s insightful recommendations and hope that the UK government will take immediate steps to implement them.

“In criticizing the blanket ‘quiet diplomacy’ approach adopted by the FCDO the report demonstrates further that the FCDO’s current position is untenable. We hope the FCDO will rethink it in the light of the report but are ready to put our concerns to the Court of Appeal if it will not do so.”

VANGUARD

News

Xenophobic Attacks: Oshiomhole Tells FG To Retaliate Against South African Companies In Nigeria

Published

10 hours ago

May 5, 2026

Editor

Senator Adams Oshiomhole has called on the Federal Government to retaliate against South African businesses operating in Nigeria following the recent attacks on Nigerians in South Africa.

Speaking during plenary on Tuesday, Oshiomhole said the Federal Government should consider revoking the working license of South African owned companies such as MTN and DSTV.

He argued that Nigeria must respond firmly to what he described as persistent hostility against its citizens.

“I am not going to shed tears. If you hit me, I hit you. I think it is appropriate in diplomacy. It is an economic struggle,” Oshiomhole said.

He argued that while some South Africans accuse Nigerians of taking their jobs, Nigerians should return home and take over employment opportunities created by major South African companies operating in the country, including MTN and DSTV.

“When we hit back, the President of South Africa will not only talk but will also go on his knees to recognise that Nigeria cannot be intimidated.

“We will not condone any life being lost. If a crime has been committed under the South African law they have the right to bring any such person to justice, but to kill our people as if we are helpless, we will not allow that,” Oshiomhole added.

DAILY POST reports that several Nigerians in South Africa have reportedly been attacked, and their businesses destroyed, in ongoing xenophobic attacks in the country.

News

IGP Orders Officers Display Name Tag On Uniform, Gives Update On State Police

Published

11 hours ago

May 5, 2026

Editor

The Inspector General of Police, IGP, Tunji Disu, has ordered all police personnel to always have their name tags on their uniforms for easy identification.

Disu disclosed that only police personnel who are undercover are exempted from displaying their name tags.

Speaking on Tuesday, Disu said: “All police officers should have their name tags. All of us on the high table have our names apart from the undercover among us so if you look at all the Commissioners of Police we have our name tags, so it’s not our standard.

News

Court Orders SERAP To Pay DSS Operatives N100m For Defamation

Published

16 hours ago

May 5, 2026

Editor

The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory has ordered a non-governmental organization, the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project, SERAP, to pay N100 million as damaged to two operatives of the Department of the State Services, DSS, for unjustly defaming them in some publications.

The court also ordered SERAP to tender public apologies to the defamed officers,
Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele, in two national newspapers, two television stations and its website.

Besides, the organization was also ordered to pay the two operatives N1 million as cost of litigation and 10 percent post-judgment interest annually on the judgment sum until it’s fully liquidated.

Justice Yusuf Halilu of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory gave the order on Tuesday while delivering judgment in a N5.5 billion defamation suit instituted against SERAP by the DSS operatives.

The judge found SERAP liable for unjustly defaming the two DSS operatives with allegations that they unlawfully invaded its Abuja office, harassed and intimidated its staff, in September 2024.

In the offending publication on its website and Twitter handle, SERAP alleged that the two operatives unlawfully invaded and occupied its office with sinister motives.

The judge held that the publication was in bad taste especially from an organization established to promote transparency and accountability, as nothing in the publication was found to be truthful.

The DSS staff had listed SERAP as 1st defendant in the suit marked CV/4547/2024. SERAP’s Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, was listed as the 2nd defendant.

In the suit, the claimants – Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele – accused the two defendants of making false claims that they invaded SERAP’s Abuja office on September 9, 2024..

Counsel to the DSS, Oluwagbemileke Samuel Kehinde, had while adopting his final address in the mater urged the judge to grant all the reliefs sought by his client in the interest of justice.

He admitted that although the names of the two claimants were not mentioned in the defamation materials, they had however established substantial circumstances that they are the ones referred to in the published defamation article by SERAP on its website.

The counsel submitted that all ingredients of defamation have been clearly established and the offending publication referred to the two officials of the secret police.

However, SERAP, through its counsel, Victoria Bassey from Tayo Oyetibo, SAN, law firm, asked the court to dismiss the suit on the ground that the two claimants did not establish that they were the ones referred to in the alleged defamation materials.

She said that SERAP used “DSS officials” in the alleged offending publication, adding that the two claimants must establish that they are the ones referred to before their case can succeed.

Similar arguments were canvassed by Oluwatosin Adefioye who stood for the second defendant, adding that there was no dispute in the September 9, 2024 operation of DSS in SERAP’s office.

He said that since SERAP in the publication did not name any particular person, the claimants must plead special circumstances that they were the ones referred to as the DSS officials.

Besides, he said that there is no organization by name Department of State Services in law, hence, DSS cannot claim being defamed adding that the only entity known to law is National Security Agency.

The claimants had in the suit stated that the alleged false claim by SERAP has negatively impacted on their reputation.

The DSS also stated, in the statement of claim, that, in line with the agency’s practice of engaging with officials of non-governmental organisations operating in the FCT to establish a relationship with their new leadership, it directed the two officials – John and Ogunleye – to visit SERAP’s office and invite them for a familiarization meeting.

The claimants added that in carrying out the directive, John and Ogunleye paid a friendly visit to SERAP’s office at 18 Bamako Street, Wuse Zone 1, Abuja on September 9 and met with one Ruth, who upon being informed about the purpose of the visit, claimed that none of SERAP’s management staff was in the country and advised that a formal letter of invitation be written by the DSS.

John and Ogundele, who claimed that their interactions with Ruth were recorded, said before they immediately exited SERAP’s office, Ruth promised to inform her organisation’s management about the visit and volunteered a phone number – 08160537202.

They said it was surprising that, shortly after their visit, SERAP posted on its X (Twitter) handle – @SERAPNigeria – that officers of the DSS are presently unlawfully occupying its office.

The claimant added, “On the same day, the defendants also published a statement on SERAP’s website, which was widely reported by several media outfits, falsely alleging that some officers from the DSS, described as “a tall, large, dark-skinned woman” and “a slim, dark skinned man,” invaded their Abuja office and interrogated the staff of the first defendant (SERAP).

John and Ogundele stated that “due to the false statements published by the defendants, the DSS has been ridiculed and criticised by international agencies such as the Amnesty International and prominent members of the Nigerian society, such as Femi Falana (SAN)”.

“Due to the false statements published by the defendants, members of the public and the international community formed the opinion that the Federal Government is using the DSS to harass the defendants.”

They added that the defendants’ statements caused harm to their reputation because the staff and management of the DSS have formed the opinion that the claimants did not follow orders and carried out an unsanctioned operation and are therefore, incompetent and unprofessional.

The claimants therefore prayed the court for the following reliefs: “An order directing the defendants to tender an apology to the claimants via the first defendant’s (SERAP’s) website, X (twitter) handle, two national daily newspapers (Punch and Vanguard) and two national news television stations (Arise Television and Channels Television) for falsely accusing the claimants of unlawfully invading the first defendant’s office and interrogating the first defendant’s staff.

“An order directing the defendants to pay the claimants the sum of N5 billion as damages for the libellous statements published about the claimants.

“Interest on the sum of N5b at the rate of 10 percent per annum from the date of judgment until the judgment sum is realised or liquidated.

“An order directing the defendants to pay the claimants the sum of N50 million as costs of this action.”