A Rendition Most Foul: The Unlawful Seizure of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and the Erosion of Due Process in Africa
By Charles Ude, Esq.
Legal Practitioner and Public Opinion Analyst
Abuja, Nigeria
Email: Charlesude2014@gmail.com
Date: April 8, 2025
Abstract
This article critically examines the extraordinary rendition of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), from Kenya to Nigeria in June 2021. It evaluates the legality of the operation under Kenyan and Nigerian domestic law as well as international human rights standards. The author argues that the rendition violates fundamental due process principles, sets a troubling precedent for cross-border law enforcement in Africa, and undermines both regional judicial cooperation and the credibility of Nigeria’s legal system. The piece concludes with a call for judicial intervention, state accountability, and political resolution through peaceful dialogue.
Keywords
Nnamdi Kanu, extraordinary rendition, due process, Nigerian Constitution, Kenyan law, international law, human rights, Biafra, ICCPR, African Charter, UNCAT.
Main Article
Introduction
The extraordinary rendition of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu from Kenya to Nigeria in June 2021 reads less like a lawful extradition in a constitutional democracy and more like the plot of a Cold War espionage thriller. As the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Kanu is a figure who has evoked both fierce loyalty and equally fervent opposition. Yet no matter how polarizing, no individual is beneath the protection of the law—or above its reach.
His abduction, detention without trial, and covert transfer to Nigeria—carried out without judicial authorization—strikes at the very heart of constitutionalism, sovereignty, and due process in Africa. This article investigates the legality of Kanu’s seizure under Kenyan, Nigerian, and international law, examines the far-reaching consequences, and pleads for a political solution to avoid further erosion of democratic norms and civil liberties.
A Closer Look: The Facts Behind the Rendition
In June 2021, Nnamdi Kanu, a dual British-Nigerian citizen, was reportedly abducted in Nairobi. Verified accounts indicate that he was detained without an arrest warrant, denied consular access, and flown to Nigeria by security operatives in an extralegal operation said to involve the complicity of Kenyan officials. Upon arrival in Abuja, Kanu was arraigned on charges of treasonable felony.
No legal extradition process was initiated. No court in Kenya authorized the transfer. Kanu was simply bundled onto a flight and delivered to Nigerian authorities in a clear circumvention of both domestic and international law.
Breaking the Law: A Triumvirate of Violations
The violations in Kanu’s case are tripartite: Kenyan domestic law, Nigerian constitutional safeguards, and international human rights instruments.
- Violations of Kenyan Law
The Constitution of Kenya (2010) protects individual liberties with robust procedural guarantees. Articles 49 and 51 require that arrestees be informed of charges, brought before a court within 24 hours, and granted legal representation. The Criminal Procedure Code further prescribes due process in extradition matters.
Kanu’s removal blatantly ignored these protections. His detention and secret rendition amounted to an unlawful abduction—bereft of transparency, oversight, or legal foundation.
- Violations of Nigerian Law
Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution (as amended) enshrines the right to liberty, fair hearing, and protection from arbitrary detention under Sections 35 and 36. The Extradition Act (Cap E25, LFN 2004) outlines mandatory judicial procedures before any foreign national can be lawfully transferred into custody.
None of these procedures were followed. By accepting a suspect unlawfully obtained from foreign soil, the Nigerian government not only flouted its own laws but risked contaminating the legitimacy of any ensuing prosecution.
- Violations of International Law
Several international conventions apply directly:
UN Convention Against Torture (CAT), Article 3 prohibits the transfer of persons to countries where they risk torture—especially relevant considering Kanu’s political profile.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Articles 7, 9, and 14 enshrine protections against arbitrary detention, torture, and the right to a fair trial.
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Articles 6 and 7 guarantee liberty and access to justice.
By side-stepping these norms, Kenya and Nigeria may have opened themselves to legal responsibility under international law and damaged their reputations as constitutional democracies.
Legal Fallout: Consequences of Unlawful Rendition
The ripple effects of this operation are both legal and political:
Nullification of Legal Proceedings: Courts may declare the trial a nullity ab initio, based on the principle that the fruits of unlawful acts cannot form the basis of lawful proceedings.
State Liability: Kenya may be held responsible for collusion in an illegal transfer; Nigeria for breaching both domestic and international obligations.
Reparations: Kanu may rightfully claim compensation for arbitrary arrest, degrading treatment, and denial of due process.
Damage to Regional Cooperation: This precedent threatens to unravel protocols governing lawful extradition, mutual legal assistance, and sovereign respect in Africa.
Precedent and Persuasion: The Case Against Rendition
Courts worldwide have consistently rejected jurisdiction founded on lawless abduction:
Mohamed v. President of South Africa (2001): South Africa’s Constitutional Court held that transferring a suspect without legal process violated the Constitution.
El-Masri v. Macedonia (2012): The European Court of Human Rights condemned Macedonia for assisting a CIA rendition.
U.S. v. Toscanino (1974): A U.S. appellate court held that jurisdiction gained through illegal means undermines the integrity of legal proceedings.
Nnamdi Kanu v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2022): Nigeria’s own Court of Appeal ruled Kanu’s rendition unlawful and ordered his release—a ruling that was later stayed.
Attorney General v. Odinkalu (2019): Affirmed that even in national security matters, the government is bound by the rule of law.
Conclusion: A Plea for Justice and Political Resolution
The extraordinary rendition of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu marks a grave betrayal of the rule of law and a breach of public trust. It has tainted judicial proceedings, violated constitutional rights, and jeopardized Nigeria’s image as a democratic republic.
Yet it is not too late to chart a better course.
We urge the Federal Government of Nigeria to demonstrate statesmanship and moral courage by intervening politically to resolve this matter. Repression cannot substitute for resolution. Dialogue must replace detention. No nation achieves enduring unity through coercion alone.
Prolonging this crisis under the shadow of a tainted legal process will only deepen division and fuel extremism. Instead, let Nigeria rise above political expediency and pursue reconciliation. A just peace demands more than silence—it demands action.
The courts have spoken. International observers are watching. And history, with the clarity of hindsight, will one day pass its judgment—not only on the legality of this act but on the wisdom of how it was addressed.
If justice is to mean anything at all, it must be pursued in the light of law, not in the shadows of statecraft.
References (OSCOLA Style)
Mohamed v. President of South Africa [2001] ZACC 18.
El-Masri v. Macedonia (2012) 55 EHRR 1 (European Court of Human Rights).
U.S. v. Toscanino 500 F.2d 267 (2d Cir. 1974).
Nnamdi Kanu v. Federal Republic of Nigeria [2022] Court of Appeal.
Attorney General v. Odinkalu [2019] Nigerian Supreme Court.
