Reported by: Ijeoma G | Edited by: Gabriel Osa
In a sharply worded statement this weekend, the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) accused the United Kingdom of “blatant double standards” in its foreign policy after British authorities publicly celebrated the return of British‑Egyptian activist Alaa Abd el‑Fattah from Egyptian detention while allegedly offering only muted support for the plight of Nnamdi Kanu, IPOB’s detained leader. The group’s remarks highlight simmering tensions over how London engages with high‑profile cases involving its dual nationals and raise broader questions about the UK’s foreign policy priorities.
On Boxing Day, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer welcomed Abd el‑Fattah back to the UK after a lengthy and internationally monitored ordeal in Egypt. Abd el‑Fattah, a well‑known pro‑democracy campaigner, was pardoned by Egyptian authorities in September and had his travel ban lifted earlier this month, allowing him to reunite with his family in Britain. Starmer described the return as “a profound relief” and reaffirmed the case as a priority for his government. The British Foreign Office has noted longstanding efforts by successive UK administrations to secure his release and reunification with his loved ones.
While the government’s role in Abd el‑Fattah’s release has drawn praise from human rights supporters, it has also sparked political controversy at home. Opposition figures and community leaders have criticized the government’s enthusiastic welcome, pointing to past social media posts attributed to Abd el‑Fattah that reportedly contained violent language and calls for violence against “Zionists” and law enforcement, remarks that critics label as extremist. Conservative politicians and Jewish community organisations have argued that the UK’s public endorsement of his return was ill‑judged given this history. The Foreign Office has responded that campaigning for the release of a British citizen does not equate to endorsing past remarks and reiterated its condemnation of any form of extremism.
Against this backdrop, IPOB’s criticism centres on what the group says is a stark contrast between the UK’s vigorous diplomacy in Abd el‑Fattah’s case and its approach to Kanu, a British‑Nigerian dual national and prominent advocate for the self‑determination of Biafra. Kanu was extraordinary‑renditioned from Kenya to Nigeria in 2021 and detained by Nigeria’s Department of State Services (DSS). IPOB states he has spent more than four years in allegedly unlawful detention, enduring harsh conditions and what it describes as torture and violations of international law.
“In the case of Alaa Abd el‑Fattah, the UK government publicly declared his freedom a top priority,” said IPOB spokesperson Emma Powerful in a Sunday statement. “Yet for over four years, the same government has offered only minimal consular support to Mazi Nnamdi Kanu — a British citizen who has been subjected to extraordinary rendition, unlawful detention, and a controversial life sentence.” Reported details of multiple legal rulings by Nigerian courts and international human rights bodies—some of which have ordered Kanu’s release or condemned his rendition—feature in IPOB’s accusations that Nigeria’s government has disregarded judicial orders.
IPOB argues that this disparity in treatment underscores what it describes as discriminatory foreign policy driven by geopolitical and religious biases. “Had Mazi Nnamdi Kanu been Muslim,” the group said, “it is inconceivable that the UK would have remained passive in the face of his unlawful abduction, sham proceedings, and recent vindictive life sentence.” The statement draws attention to several binding decisions, including those by Nigerian courts and United Nations human rights mechanisms, which IPOB claims have been ignored by both Abuja and London.
The group also invoked historical grievances, pointing to the legacy of British colonial engagement in southeastern Nigeria and suggesting that unresolved biases influence contemporary diplomatic responses. IPOB’s statement cited events such as the Aba Women’s Uprising of 1929 and the Biafran War as markers of longstanding inequities affecting the Igbo people. The organisation called on the United Nations, African Union, European Union, United States and other international bodies to pressure Nigeria to free Kanu and urged Britain to align its advocacy for Kanu with the effort it displayed for Abd el‑Fattah.
Nigeria’s handling of Kanu’s case has been contentious domestically as well. While the government has defended its judicial proceedings, critics within Nigeria argue that Kanu’s conviction and life sentence were rooted in political bias and legal irregularities. Some regional leaders and civil society groups have urged administrative solutions and negotiations to secure Kanu’s release, though these overtures have frequently been rebuffed or mired in broader federal politics. Recent comments by Abia State Governor Alex Otti indicated ongoing discussions aimed at a resolution, though details remain sparse.
The broader international legal context complicates the matter further. Human rights advocates have highlighted that Kanu’s extraordinary rendition from Kenya to Nigeria in 2021 raised serious questions about adherence to due process and international legal norms. They point to rulings by appeals courts and international human rights bodies condemning arbitrary detention and calling for his release, adding weight to IPOB’s claims of injustice. Critics of these positions counter that internal security and national unity considerations underpin Nigeria’s stance on secessionist movements and that legal processes must run their course.
In London, while the government’s stance on Abd el‑Fattah has dominated headlines, questions about its broader approach to citizens abroad resonate with diaspora communities and civil liberties advocates. Some commentators assert that the vehement advocacy for Abd el‑Fattah’s freedom reflects longstanding diplomatic efforts to protect Britons in foreign legal systems, while others argue that comparisons with the Kanu case reveal inconsistencies that require clearer policy articulation. Labour and Conservative figures remain divided in their assessments, with opposition parties pushing for more transparency and consistency in consular support and human rights advocacy.
Amidst these debates, the UK government has maintained that all British citizens deserve protection and support overseas. A Foreign Office spokesperson reiterated that Mr. Abd el‑Fattah’s British citizenship underpinned extensive efforts to secure his return, and that the government continues to monitor the situation of all dual nationals detained abroad. The spokesperson did not address specific criticisms regarding Kanu’s detention but asserted that the UK engages with foreign partners in line with international law and its diplomatic priorities.
The contrasting reactions to these two high‑profile cases—one ending in celebration, the other in continued detention and international protest—have circulated globally, prompting scrutiny from human rights organisations, foreign policy experts and diaspora communities. As 2025 draws to a close, the discourse surrounding Britain’s role in protecting its citizens abroad and promoting consistent human rights standards remains highly charged and politically significant.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments