'10-minute phone call every 3 months not enough' - Nnamdi Kanu's family to British Govt

The family of Nnamdi Kanu, the incarcerated Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, has expressed deep disappointment with Britain's handling of his case. Kanu, who holds both Nigerian and British citizenship, is currently serving a life sentence in Sokoto following a terrorism conviction by the Nigerian government. The family, through Prince Emmanuel Kanu, has criticized the British government for its perceived failure to adequately intervene in his case.

According to the family, the British government's only substantive interaction with Kanu has been through 10-minute phone calls every three to four months, which they describe as insufficient. They argue that these routine welfare checks do not constitute meaningful action for a case involving a life sentence, a contested legal foundation, and an unaddressed appeal.

The family also highlighted the United Kingdom's recent appointment of Alistair Burt as the first Envoy for Complex Consular Detentions, which they believe should have been utilized in Kanu's case.

The family asserts that Kanu's appeal against his conviction, filed in June 2026, has remained unlisted and unheard, despite the Supreme Court process initiated in November 2025 yet to yield a substantive response. They claim that letters addressed to the Chief Justice of Nigeria and the President of the Court of Appeal have not resulted in a satisfactory resolution.

The family contends that the ongoing delay in addressing Kanu's appeal constitutes a serious due-process concern and questions Britain's commitment to securing his rights.

In their criticism, the family also touches upon Britain's historical opposition to the Biafran independence movement during the Nigerian Civil War, alleging that this past stance has influenced its current handling of Kanu's case. They urge the British government to formally inquire about the specific legal provisions under which Kanu was convicted and detained, referencing Section 36(12) of the Nigerian Constitution.

The family demands that Britain take more concrete steps in Kanu's case, emphasizing that mere diplomatic engagement is insufficient. They argue that Britain, a proponent of the rule of law and the common-law tradition, must move beyond routine communication and ensure the swift hearing of Kanu's appeal and the resolution of the issues affecting its citizen.

The family maintains that Britain's duty to its citizen must be measured by the seriousness of its actions and the outcomes achieved, rather than by the frequency of diplomatic contacts.