From Magnus Eze, Enugu
Further clarifications have emerged regarding the United Kingdom’s High Court ruling that the Foreign Secretary did not have to reach decision on the extraordinary rendition of leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, from Kenya to Nigeria by the Nigerian Government.
The High Court on Thursday made an unconventional ruling in a significant human rights case centred on Nnamdi Kanu, the British national and the leader of the IPOB.
Whilst Justice Swift noted the findings of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the two separate rulings from Nigeria’s High Court and Court of Appeal that Kanu had been extraordinarily rendered to Nigeria following his ‘interception’ in Kenya by Nigerian security forces and observed himself that Kanu had been subject to “rendition”, he went on to hold that the Foreign Secretary was legally entitled to make no decision on whether this is the case or not.
Bindmans, the legal team acting for Kanu’s family, described the ruling as “extremely difficult to reconcile with long-standing legal precedent and the principle underpinning it.”
In his explanation, Aloy Ejimakor, who is special counsel to Kanu and IPOB, said the judgment was neither a setback to the IPOB leader nor the Biafra struggle. For clarity, he said the negative part of the judgment is merely saying that the matter should be left to the courts, not the executive branch.
“In other words, the Foreign Secretary of UK may not interfere while the judicial processes or suits are still ongoing. You can also say it’s a stretch of separation of powers. Accordingly, the Kanu family, through the Bindmans law firm in the UK, has taken the matter to the Court of Appeal of England,” Ejimakor stated.
Kanu’s case was heard over four months ago on 15 November 2022. In the judgment, Justice Swift noted the evidence of serious wrongs having been committed against Kanu, including that in 2017, the Nigerian state had attempted to kill the IPOB leader (for which a Nigerian High Court awarded compensation and an order for apology), that the Nigerian authorities captured Kanu in 2021 whilst he was in Kenya and subjected him to inhuman and degrading treatment, and crucially that he was subject to “rendition.”
The Court also highlighted extracts from the Opinion of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the Nigerian courts, which unanimously found that Mr Kanu was subject to extraordinary rendition and which called for his release.
However, despite clearly recognising the gravity of the wrongs committed against Kanu, the court held that he has no legitimate expectation that the British government should reach a firm view for itself on what had occurred or its seriousness.
Ejimakor said this was particularly surprising given that the court itself reached the view that Kanu had been rendered on the basis of the evidence before it.
Younger brother of the IPOB leader, Kingsley Kanu, who brought the lawsuit on behalf of the family, said: “I find it very disappointing that in spite of this, the High Court has held that the British authorities are not required to reach a decisive view on his rendition and can refuse to confront the mass of evidence of what has occurred. Until the British authorities reach such a view, it is impossible for them to properly consider what steps should be taken to assist my brother.”