Connect with us

News

IPOB Knocks UK Govt Over Silence On Continued Detention Of Nnamdi Kanu

Published

on

The pro-Biafra group described Mazi Kanu’s rendition as flagrant breach of Section 15 of Nigeria’s Extradition Act.

The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has criticized the United Kingdom for allegedly being complicit in the unlawful rendition and continued detention of its leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.

IPOB in a statement by its Spokesman / Media and Publicity Secretary, Emma Powerful titled, “United Kingdoms complicity in Nigeria’s illegal rendition and detention of British citizen Mazi Nnamdi Kanu: A judicial and moral indictment” decried the continued silence and what it called apparent complicity of United Kingdom government in the face of violation of Kanu’s right.

The pro-Biafra group which described Mazi Kanu’s rendition as flagrant breach of Section 15 of Nigeria’s Extradition Act, Article 12(4) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and
Articles 9 and 14 of the ICCPR, to which both Nigeria and the UK are state parties.

IPOB’s statement read, “The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) decries the continued silence and apparent complicity of the United Kingdom Government in the face of Nigeria’s gross and well-documented violations of international law, domestic law, and judicial precedent against Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, a British citizen and freedom advocate.”

“Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was abducted in Kenya in June 2021 in a state-sponsored criminal act of extraordinary rendition and forcibly returned to Nigeria without any extradition proceedings, a flagrant breach of Section 15 of Nigeria’s Extradition Act, Article 12(4) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and Articles 9 and 14 of the ICCPR, to which both Nigeria and the UK are state parties.

See also  Nnamdi Kanu’s lawyers withdraw from case

“What makes the UK’s silence especially appalling is that this is not an abstract diplomatic disagreement, but a matter in which the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (Opinion No. 25/2022) unequivocally declared Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s detention illegal, and ordered his immediate release and compensation.

“The Kenyan High Court ruled that his abduction on Kenyan soil was unconstitutional, and awarded damages for Kenya’s complicity. The Nigerian Court of Appeal (October 2022) held that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s extraordinary rendition constituted a fundamental violation of Nigerian law, effectively nullifying the proceedings against him.

“The Federal High Court sitting in Umuahia (2022) awarded Mazi Kanu, ₦500 million in damages for the same violations. Three judicial forums in Nigeria, Kenya, and at the UN level have all concluded that Nnamdi Kanu’s fundamental rights were trampled upon.

“It is alarming that after all these the UK Government, under the pretence of consular ambiguity and “dual nationality,” has refused to act or even issue a formal condemnation. This is in stark contradiction to its own principled reaction in the Dikko Affair (1984), where it, condemned Nigeria’s attempted rendition of Umaru Dikko from the UK in the strongest diplomatic terms.

“Severed diplomatic ties, threatened legal action for violations of international law and British sovereignty. In Dikko v. The State [1987] 2 NWLR (Pt. 56) 539, the Supreme Court of Nigeria, per Karibi-Whyte, JSC, made a judicial pronouncement that remains timeless.

“The trial of an accused person who has been brought before the court in violation of international law and without compliance with extradition procedures is a nullity. Jurisdiction cannot be conferred upon the court by illegality.

See also  Soludo unveils new official portrait for second term

“It is deeply ironic, if not disgraceful, that while Nigeria is abandoning its own Supreme Court precedent, the UK has chosen silence, thus betraying the very principles it once stood for.

“To add further salt to injury, the alleged offences for which Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is being persecuted, primarily, political broadcasts were not committed in Nigeria. The applicable Nigerian law, Section 76 of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, provides that Nigerian courts can only assume jurisdiction where the alleged act is also a crime in the place it was committed, the well-established principle of double criminality.

“There is no evidence nor allegation that the UK, where the broadcasts were allegedly made, has found them criminal under UK law. Therefore, by Nigerian law, no court in Nigeria has jurisdiction from the onset to put Mazi Nnamdi Kanu on trial.”

IPOB, therefore, demands, “In view of the above, we call on the United Kingdom Government to publicly condemn the extraordinary rendition and continuing detention of our leader Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.”

“We also urge the United Kingdom to invoke diplomatic and legal mechanisms to demand Kanu’s immediate and unconditional release, just as they should clarify its position to the British Parliament and public on how it justifies inaction where a British citizen is illegally abducted, tortured, and indefinitely detained in breach of international law.

“British silence in this case is not neutrality, it is complicity. The UK must choose between its stated commitment to human rights and the rule of law, and its political convenience in shielding a illegality of the state. It cannot do both. History will not forget where Britain stood in this defining moment”

See also  Police arrest AFP journalists covering #FreeNnamdiKanu protest in Abuja

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

TUMBLR

INSTAGRAM

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

News

Step-by-step guide for contactless passport renewal for Nigerians abroad

Published

on

The Nigeria Immigration Service has released an updated step-by-step guide for Nigerians living abroad to renew their passports through its Contactless Passport Application System.

The Service announced the update in a post on its official X handle on Tuesday, encouraging Nigerians in the diaspora to take advantage of the digital platform.

According to the Service, the application process involves the following steps:

1. Visit the official NIS Passport Application portal.
2. Select Continue from the pop-up window.
3. Click Apply for Renewal/Re-issue.
4. Create an account and verify your identity using your National Identification Number and date of birth.
5. Complete the application form and choose your preferred processing embassy or high commission.
6. Upload the required documents.
7. Pay the passport fee for your selected booklet.
8. Obtain your Application ID and Reference Number.
9. Select the Contactless option under the Application Status/Book Appointment section.
10. Review the contactless instructions and click “I Understand and Opt In.”
11. Download the NIS Mobile App.
12. Log in or create a profile on the app.
13. Select Passport Application Services.
14. Click Passport Biometrics Enrolment, enter your Application ID and Reference Number, and check your eligibility.
15. Capture your facial image and fingerprints.
16. Complete the liveness verification.
17. Pay the contactless service fee.
18. Submit your biometrics.

The Service, however, noted that not all applicants would qualify for the contactless process.

“If response is INELIGIBLE, then it means applicant should return to the landing page of the portal to book physical appointment at the Embassy/High Commission,” it stated.

See also  I’m a peacemaker and not spokesman to armed groups – Sheik Gumi

For applicants who successfully complete the contactless biometric enrolment, the NIS said additional documents must be forwarded to the selected processing mission.

“Upon successful completion of biometrics via Contactless App, applicant should print-out the Application form, passport booklet payment, biometric payment, current Passport and enclose all in a self-addressed return envelope to the processing embassy selected during the application process,” the Service said.

It added that applicants would be able to monitor the progress of their applications after submission.

“Applicant may track successful application two weeks after submission via https://track.immigration.gov.ng or on the NIS Mobile App,” the Service added.

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

Continue Reading

News

PFIPC scandal: Ex-SGF Babachir Lawal suspects ‘big racket’ behind ‘fake’ agency’s budget code

Published

on

A former Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Babachir Lawal, has called for a judicial inquiry into the controversy surrounding the alleged fake Presidential Fiscal and Infrastructure Projects Council (PFIPC), arguing that the scandal points to deep institutional failures rather than a simple administrative error.

Speaking in an interview with ARISE NEWS on Monday, Lawal said the circumstances surrounding the alleged agency suggested the existence of a wider network that enabled it to function within government processes despite questions over its legal status.

He insisted that an administrative investigation alone would be insufficient. “I don’t think it should even be administrative alone; it should be a judicial inquiry”, the former SGF clearly stated.

Lawal questioned claims surrounding an alleged ₦27.5bn take-off grant reportedly linked to the agency, asking how such funds could have been approved and released if the organisation had no legal basis.

“Nigerians are talking about how N1.3bn was inserted into the budget. The man himself first said the quarrel came about because he refused to part with 48% of the 27-point-something billion Naira take-off grant. That money has been spent before this budget office was looking for the budget.

“Who gave him the money? It was not appropriated for; it’s not in any budget, that N27.5bn Naira for which he says somebody demanded 48%. Who gave him the money? How did the process of generating the request for the release come up? How did it go through?

“We are just talking about the tip of the iceberg here. Down there, before we got to here, N27.5bn had already been disbursed, according to him, as a take-off grant. How did that money get to him? It was not in the budget. So this is what should frighten us. If such money can go to a fictitious organisation, we only now begin to see it when we are quarrelling about how it got into the budget. How did that money get to them?”, Babachir queried.

See also  Soludo unveils new official portrait for second term

The former SGF argued that the controversy only became public because of disagreements over the sharing of funds rather than because government oversight mechanisms functioned effectively.

He continued,… “So you see, that’s how we got to know this to start with. That is the reason why we got to know this on his side of the coin. It’s about the sharing of the N27.5bn. That’s why the thing came up. So it didn’t work. It should have worked before that money left the government coffers into the account of the agency.”

Lawal also alleged that the scandal reflected broader institutional weaknesses within the current administration, arguing that the Office of the SGF should have detected any irregularities before the matter progressed through official channels.

He maintained that the SGF’s office bears responsibility for identifying and flagging agencies without legal backing before their requests or budgets proceed through government.

He said, “It’s institutional compromise, because in this, I sense there’s quite a big racket going on somewhere along the line. If the agency was created by maybe one big man alone, and then he wants to go through the budget process, the budget office assigns the budget code according to the chart of accounts in GIFMIS. So, how did they manage to assign the budget code for this agency that does not exist? Who inserted it?

“Because first of all, the budget office issues a budget call circular to MDAs, and everybody starts to prepare his budget according to the budget line. They give you ceilings, and you prepare your budget and forward it to the budget office as an agency or ministry. Now, the Ministry of Budget and Planning would, in our time, call every MDA to come and defend its budget. Now, if you don’t exist, how did they recognise that you are a genuine entity? Who gave out the budget code and allowed their budget to pass?

See also  Police arrest AFP journalists covering #FreeNnamdiKanu protest in Abuja

“That’s what oversight is. The SGF should be able to know, because before it gets to the National Assembly, that budget goes through the SGF. Unless there’s a dereliction of duty by the SGF’s office, the responsibility to flag that this is a fake agency would have come from them.”

Lawal further criticised the National Assembly, accusing lawmakers of failing to thoroughly scrutinise budget proposals.

“It is a legislative oversight. This government—this National Assembly—has no interest in scrutinising the budget that comes before them. Most of the legislators just go in there to earn their salaries and collect allowances and go. They don’t scrutinise the budget line by line. We all know how this particular government works. There are some people that when they talk, nobody else has the authority to contravene.”

He also suggested that public attention should focus not only on the agency’s legal status but on the individuals who allegedly enabled its operations.

“Why are you interested in N27.5bn that had already been collected and spent? We are talking about an agency that we are claiming doesn’t exist. Maybe it exists, but it doesn’t have a legal framework for its existence. But it exists. And there are a lot of powerful people that make sure it exists in that form.

“Those are the people we need to expose. The Chief of Staff, in particular, is so powerful. The SGF is there, just reneging on his responsibilities. And nothing has happened now”, he concluded.

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

 

See also  Those denying Christian genocide need psychiatric evaluation – Enenche

Continue Reading

News

Fake Agency Scandal: Gbajabiamila threatens Adeyemi with N10bn defamation suit

Published

on

Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, ha threatened to initiate legal steps against Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi, and demand N10 billion in damages over allegations linking him to murder, bribery and other criminal activities.

The move was conveyed in a letter dated July 6, 2026, signed by Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Kemi Pinheiro, on behalf of Pinheiro LP, the Chief of Staff’s legal representatives.

The dispute stems from a press conference held by Adeyemi on June 25, during which he accused Gbajabiamila of seeking a share of the alleged take-off funds of the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC), receiving money through intermediaries, abusing his office and participating in efforts to conceal wrongdoing.Death & Tragedy

During the briefing, Adeyemi also referred to the Chief of Staff as “a murderer” and “an assassin”.

The Presidency has consistently maintained that the PFIPC is a fictitious organisation, despite its appearance in the 2026 Appropriation Act.

Gbajabiamila’s lawyers dismissed all the allegations as entirely false and defamatory, saying they were intended to damage his reputation.

The letter stated: “not only false but gravely defamatory,” adding that the allegations were “designed to portray our client as corrupt, dishonest, criminally culpable, morally bankrupt, administratively incompetent, a murderer and unfit to occupy public office.”

According to the legal team, Adeyemi is already standing trial before the Federal High Court in Abuja in Charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/652/2026, FRN v. Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew & Ors, over allegations including forgery of an appointment letter bearing Gbajabiamila’s purported signature and the alleged counterfeiting of Presidential letter-headed papers to present himself as a government official.Nigeria Investment Guide

See also  Soludo unveils new official portrait for second term

The lawyers further rejected Adeyemi’s claims that Gbajabiamila demanded 48 per cent of a purported N27.4 billion take-off grant for the council, amounting to about N12.5 billion, or that he received N400 million through proxies connected to appointments within the organisation.

Other allegations dismissed in the letter included claims that the Chief of Staff intimidated individuals and media organisations, manipulated budget processes, attempted to misuse security agencies and performed official duties while under the influence of intoxicating substances.Trending News Feed

Gbajabiamila also denied ever having any relationship with Adeyemi.

“You have never at any time met, interacted with, communicated with, or had any form of personal or official dealing whatsoever with him,” the lawyers wrote, adding that the decision to “fabricate and publish allegations against a person with whom you have had absolutely no relationship or interaction underscores the reckless, baseless and malicious nature of your publication.”

The legal team also criticised the timing of the allegations, noting that they were made after criminal proceedings had already been instituted against Adeyemi.

“It is even more disturbing to our client that you resorted to defaming him through your press statements after a criminal Charge had been filed against you,” the letter stated.

It added, “Trial by media remains unknown to Nigerian law and cannot be a substitute for due process.”Nigeria Investment Guide

Gbajabiamila’s lawyers demanded that Adeyemi immediately stop making further defamatory statements, remove all related videos, recordings and transcripts from every platform, issue a full retraction and apology in at least five national newspapers and across all social media platforms used to circulate the claims, and provide a written undertaking that he would refrain from making further allegations.

See also  I’m a peacemaker and not spokesman to armed groups – Sheik Gumi

The letter warned that failure to comply would result in both criminal defamation proceedings under the laws of the Federal Capital Territory and a civil lawsuit seeking N10 billion in aggravated and exemplary damages. The damages, it said, would be donated to a charity chosen by Gbajabiamila. The legal action would also seek a perpetual injunction and a court order compelling the publication of an apology.

The controversy centres on the PFIPC, which was listed in the 2026 Appropriation Act under the title Presidential Economic Advisory Council/Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council and received more than N1.3 billion in budgetary allocations, including about N803 million for personnel, N200 million for overhead and N300 million for capital expenditure.

Adeyemi had argued during his June 25 press conference that an agency included in a budget signed by the President could not be regarded as non-existent.

However, the Presidency insists the council is fraudulent and has no legal existence.

Meanwhile, human rights lawyer Femi Falana has argued that the Presidency lacks the constitutional authority to clear anyone involved in the dispute and has called for an independent investigation into the allegations against both Gbajabiamila and Adeyemi.

Adeyemi is scheduled to appear before the Federal High Court on July 27, 2026.

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

INSTAGRAM

Continue Reading

Trending