The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has praised the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNHCR) for criticizing the arrest of the separatist group’s leader, Nnamdi Kanu, via its International Working Group.
The organization also praised Kanu’s international lawyer, Bruce Fein, for his efforts in calling the body’s notice to the IPOB leader’s suffering.
An international Working Group has ruled Kanu’s arrest to be illegal and a violation of his international human rights.
It also demanded the IPOB’s immediate release and reparations from the Nigerian and Kenyan governments for the way he was abused.
The United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) Working Group on Arbitrary Detention announced this in a statement published on its website.
The organization is made up of professors and specialists who specialize in human rights and associated laws.
Fein, the IPOB leader’s American lawyer, had petitioned the group for an alleged flagrant breach of his client’s rights.
In its findings, the UN committee also called Kanu’s deportation from Kenya in June 2021 “illegal, unlawful, and unconstitutional extradition.”
In a statement issued on Sunday, IPOB praised the Striving Group, Fein, and everyone who is working to free the arrested IPOB leader.
The IPOB leader was arrested in Kenya and would be returned in June 2021.
The organization is made up of professors and specialists who specialize in human rights concerns and associated laws.
Fein, the IPOB leader’s American lawyer, had petitioned the organization over an alleged flagrant breach of his client’s rights.
Kanu’s repatriation from Kenya in June 2021 was also labeled as “illegal, unlawful, and unconstitutional extradition” by the UN panel in its report.
In a statement issued on Sunday, IPOB praised the Working Group, Fein, and everyone involved in the fight to free the incarcerated IPOB leader.
The IPOB leader was held after being apprehended in Kenya and was returned in June 2021.
He was detained for his support for Biafra and, by implication, Nigeria’s disintegration.
He has subsequently been detained by Nigeria’s secret police, the Department of State Services (DSS), and his trial for terrorism-related offenses has begun in the country’s capital, Abuja.
“We, the global and noble family of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) under the supreme leadership of Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu hereby commend Attorney Bruce Fein for the professional job in regards to the recently issued United Nations Opinion, condemning the extraordinary rendition of our Leader Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and directing the Government of Nigeria to release him unconditionally,” said IPOB’s publicity secretary, Emma Powerful, on Sunday.
“In the same way, we applaud everyone who silently worked and contributed to this historic win. It is a significant achievement for our leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the IPOB, and Biafrans globally.” ” We also express our heartfelt thanks to the United Nations and its Working Group for exercising bravery in reaching this judgment and releasing an opinion consistent with international law.
“Nigeria, as a member of the United Nations, should take note and quickly comply and implement UN mandates to the letter. We emphasize that this is not a Nigerian court order, which is frequently ignored without consequence.”
“The Working Group is conscious that article 9 (2) of the Covenant demands that anybody arrested be not only notified of the reasons for the arrest but also quickly informed of any charges against them,” the working group stated. The requirement included in article 9 (2) comprises two aspects, as noted by the Human Rights Committee in its general remark No. 35: information regarding the reasons for the arrest must be supplied immediately upon arrest, and information about the charges must be provided promptly thereafter. Failure to do so breaches article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 9 of the Covenant, and principle 10 of the Body of Principles, rendering the arrest illegal.
“As a result, Mr. Kanu’s detention without a warrant and with no explanation as to why he was arrested breached his rights under article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 9 of the Covenant, and principles 2, 4, 10, and 36 (2) of the Body of Principles,” it stated.
In its findings, the UN committee also called Kanu’s deportation from Kenya in June 2021 “illegal, unlawful, and unconstitutional extradition.”
“On 30 December 2021, the Working Group forwarded the claims from the source to the Governments of Nigeria and Kenya through its usual communications procedure,” it stated. The Working Group requested that the Governments provide detailed information about Mr. Kanu’s current situation and clarify the legal provisions justifying his continued detention, as well as their compatibility with Nigeria and Kenya’s obligations under international human rights law, particularly the treaties ratified by the two States, by 28 February 2022. Furthermore, the Working Group urged the Nigerian government to protect Mr. Kanu’s physical and emotional well-being.
“On January 25, 2022, the Government of Nigeria responded, stating that, while the issue is still being heard in national courts, “any reaction by the Federal Government of Nigeria will be unconscionable.”
“The Working Group regrets that it did not receive a response from the Government of Kenya and did not request an extension in line with paragraph 16 of the Working Group’s working methodology.”
Since its inception, the Working Group has argued that detaining someone without a warrant results in arbitrary detention. In any case, there is no legal foundation for this.
“Judicial monitoring of any detention is a key safeguard for personal liberty and ensures that detention is justified. The Working Group considers that the circumstances surrounding Mr. Kanu’s incarceration at an undisclosed location breached his right to an effective remedy under article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 2 (3) of the Covenant ” He was also removed from the protection of the law, in violation of his right to be recognized as a person before the law under articles 6 and 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
“The Working Group also believes that Mr. Kanu’s detention following his arrest constitutes pre-trial detention, which violated the provisions of article 9 (3) of the Covenant in that Mr. Kanu was not presented before a judicial authority within 48 hours and no individual assessment of the appropriateness of his pre-trial detention took place.” The source claims, and the Government does not dispute, that on or about June 29, 2021, Mr. Kanu was subjected to extraordinary rendition to Abuja, Nigeria, with no previous court or administrative hearing. According to the source, Mr. Kanu was refused access to counsel and was denied any legal processes while in Kenya. According to the source, Mr. Kanu was caught and taken to Abuja with the assistance of Nigerian intelligence authorities and Interpol.
“According to the source, there was no fair and public hearing in the current issue surrounding Mr. Kanu’s transfer from Kenya to Nigeria.” According to the source, involuntary deportation to a foreign country without a hearing before court authorities violates due process. The facts, as told by the source and undisputed by the government, show that Mr. Kanu was never brought before a court before fleeing Nairobi. Instead, he was seized against his will, without any legal procedure or protection. According to Nigeria’s Attorney General, he was forcefully transported from Nairobi to Abuja per an agreement between the Kenyan and Nigerian governments, with the aid of Nigerian intelligence agents and Interpol.
“As the Working Group has previously remarked 9, international law governing extradition establishes processes that governments must follow when arresting, detaining, and sending individuals to face criminal proceedings in another country, as well as protecting their right to a fair trial.” This is also a clarifying obligation arising from article 13 of the Covenant, which states that the person who is to be expelled “be allowed to submit the reasons for his expulsion and to have his case reviewed by, and be represented before, the competent authority or a person or persons specially designated by the competent authority.”
“Furthermore, the Working Group observes that this was preceded by Mr. Kanu’s covert imprisonment.” As stated by the Working Group and other experts in the joint study on global practices in relation to secret detention in the context of counter-terrorism: “Secret detention, involving the denial or concealment of a person’s detention, whereabouts, or fate, has the inherent consequence of placing the person outside the protection of the law.”
“The practice of “proxy detention,” in which persons are transferred from one State to another outside the realm of any international or national legal procedure (“rendition” or “extraordinary rendition”) for the specific purpose of secretly detaining them, or to exclude the possibility of review by the domestic courts of the State having custody of the detainee, or otherwise in violation of the well-established principle of non-refoulement, has the same consequences.” The practice of “proxy detention” entails the accountability of both the State detaining the victim and the State on whose behalf or at whose request the imprisonment occurs.
“It is intended to bypass any procedural protections and is incompatible with international law.” The Working Group has already determined a violation of Covenant article 9 and arbitrary imprisonment when persons were moved to another country beyond the boundaries of any legal procedure, such as extradition, and were denied access to counsel. That’s exactly what happened to Mr. Kanu.
“Secret detention, which involves the denial or concealment of a person’s custody, location, or destiny, has the intrinsic consequence of removing the individual from legal protection.” The practice of “proxy detention,” in which persons are transferred from one State to another outside the realm of any international or national legal procedure (“rendition” or “extraordinary rendition”) for the specific purpose of secretly detaining them, or to preclude review by the domestic courts of the State having custody of the detainee, or otherwise in violation of the well-established principle of non-refoulement, has the same consequences.
“The practice of “proxy detention” involves the responsibility of both the State that is detaining the victim and the State on whose behalf or at whose behest the detention takes place.
“In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion: In relation to Kenya and Nigeria; The deprivation of liberty of Nwannekaenyi Nnamdi Kenny Okwu-Kanu, being in contravention of articles 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2, 9, 13, 14, 16, 19 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is arbitrary and falls within Categories I, II, III and V.
“The Working Group urges the governments of Kenya and Nigeria to take immediate action to remedy Mr. Kanu’s situation and bring it into compliance with relevant international norms, including those enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”
“Taking into account all of the circumstances of the case, the Working Group believes that the appropriate remedy would be for the Government of Nigeria to release Mr. Kanu immediately and for both Governments to grant him an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations in accordance with international law.” In light of the current worldwide coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and the threat it poses in detention facilities, the Working Group urges the Nigerian government to take prompt and unequivocal steps to guarantee Mr. Kanu’s immediate and unconditional release.
“The Working Group urges the two governments to conduct a thorough and impartial inquiry into the circumstances underlying Mr. Kanu’s arbitrary detention and to take necessary action against those responsible for his rights violations.”
