Kanu’s Family Urges UK To Push For Appeal Hearing

The Okwu-Kanu Family has urged the British Government to use its diplomatic influence to press Nigerian authorities for an immediate hearing of Nnamdi Kanu’s appeal against his life sentence conviction, which it says has remained unlisted and unheard since it was filed in June 2026.

The family, in a statement dated October 18 and signed by Prince Emmanuel Kanu on its behalf, also called on the UK to explain the steps it has taken to address the legal concerns surrounding the conviction of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB).

It said Kanu’s appeal was filed and served in June 2026 but had yet to be listed for hearing, adding that no respondent’s brief had been filed as of the date of the statement.

The family also raised concerns about a separate Supreme Court process filed and served in November 2025, which it said had not produced the substantive response it was seeking.

It urged the British Government to move beyond diplomatic engagements and take concrete steps towards securing a prompt hearing of the appeal.

“Diplomatic contact is not the same as effective protection. A record of meetings is not proof that justice has been secured,” the statement said.

The family said Britain had acknowledged Kanu’s case and previously engaged Nigerian authorities but argued that the efforts had not secured a hearing of his appeal or addressed the issues it had raised concerning his detention and conviction.

Kanu, a British citizen, is serving a life sentence following his conviction in November 2025. The family maintains that the legal basis for the conviction is questionable because, according to its interpretation, the relevant legislation had been repealed.

It argued that the authorities should identify the specific provisions of existing written law defining the offences and prescribing the penalties imposed on him.

The family cited Section 36(12) of the Nigerian Constitution, which provides that a person cannot be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence and its penalty are prescribed in a written law.

“In Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s case, neither the prosecution nor the trial judge identified an identical, applicable provision of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 defining each offence and prescribing the penalty imposed,” it alleged.

The family called on the Nigerian authorities to identify the legal provisions underpinning the conviction, while asking Britain whether it had formally raised the issue with the Federal Government.

It also questioned Kanu’s continued detention following the Court of Appeal’s October 2022 decision discharging him and quashing the counts against him.

According to the family, Kanu remained in custody after the decision and was subsequently prosecuted and convicted in November 2025 on counts it said had previously been quashed.

It further criticised the Federal Government’s use of a civil stay of execution, obtained 14 days after the appellate court’s decision, arguing that the process affected the operation of the discharge.

The family called on the British Government to explain what representations it had made concerning the continued detention and subsequent prosecution of Kanu after the Court of Appeal’s ruling.

It also asked whether his case had been referred to the UK’s Envoy for Complex Consular Detentions, Alistair Burt, appointed in July 2026 to give additional attention to difficult cases involving British nationals detained overseas.

“If not, will the Foreign Secretary refer it urgently and ensure that it receives the senior-level attention the role was created to provide?” the statement asked.

The family described the consular contact it said Kanu had received as inadequate, claiming that calls to check on his food and health occurred for about 10 minutes every three to four months.

It argued that such contact was insufficient given the life sentence, the unresolved legal questions and the delay in hearing his appeal.

The family also linked its concerns to Britain’s historical role during the Nigerian Civil War, accusing the British Government of supporting the Federal Military Government while publicly advocating peace and restraint.

It cited a United States intelligence estimate dated August 12, 1969, and proceedings in the British House of Commons on November 17, 1969, as part of its argument about Britain’s arms policy during the war.

The family said it believed Britain’s historical position on Biafra was relevant to its current response to Kanu’s case, while urging the UK to demonstrate its commitment to the rule of law through concrete action.

It stressed, however, that it was not asking Britain to determine the outcome of Kanu’s appeal but to use its diplomatic channels to press for a prompt hearing and a lawful resolution.

Among the questions it wants the British Government to answer are whether it considers the delay in hearing the appeal a serious due-process concern, what specific representations it has made to Nigerian authorities and what further steps it intends to take.

The family also asked Britain to state whether it had raised the legal basis of Kanu’s conviction with the Nigerian Government and what timetable it had set for further action.

“We demand action, not engagement. We demand answers, not consular visits,” the statement said.

The family said Kanu had spent a cumulative eight years in detention and expressed concern about his health and continued incarceration at Sokoto Correctional Centre.

It called on the British Government to publicly account for its efforts and press for a prompt hearing of the appeal, adding that it would not consider routine diplomatic contact an adequate response while the issues it raised remained unresolved.