IPOB leader Nnamdi Kanu loses appeal against UK over detention in Nigeria

<p>The leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has lost his appeal against the United Kingdom (UK) government regarding his detention in Nigeria.</p>, <p>Kanu has been detained at the facility of the State Security Service (SSS) since he was rearrested in Kenya and brought back to Nigeria in June 2021, after initially fleeing the country in 2017.</p>, <p>The IPOB leader, who holds both British and Nigerian citizenship, had filed an appeal in London last year, seeking the UK government’s intervention in his case with the Nigerian government.</p>, <p>Premium Times reports that Kanu had approached the UK courts to obtain an order compelling the government to take a stand and publicly condemn his detention.</p>, <p>Kanu sued the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office (FCDO), also known as the Foreign Secretary, as the representative of the UK government in London.</p>, <p>The court, however, dismissed his case on Thursday, March 23, 2023.</p>, <p>Kanu, then, filed an appeal with the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal, Royal Courts of Justice, in London, to challenge the High Court’s ruling.</p>, <p>Meanwhile, the Court of Appeal on July 7 upheld the High Court’s ruling, stating that it could not interfere in the UK government’s decision concerning the IPOB leader’s detention and conditions in Nigeria.</p>, <p>The judge, David Bean, delivering the lead decision of the court’s three-member panel, said it could not force the Foreign Secretary to take a firm position on the matter while the Nigerian government’s case against Kanu was still pending at Nigeria’s Supreme Court.</p>, <p>“I consider, therefore, that it is not irrational for the Foreign Secretary to refrain from reaching a firm view while the matter is still properly before the Nigerian courts,” Bean ruled.</p>, <p>In addition, The judge also held that the Foreign Secretary’s refusal to make a public statement condemning Kanu’s detention did not constitute a procedural breach.</p>, <p>The court noted that