The United Kingdom has been accused of facilitating the “persecution” of its citizen, Nnamdi Kanu, by the Nigerian government by the American Veterans of Igbo Descent, or AVID, an organization of retired and active U.S. military personnel of Igbo descent.
Kanu has a British passport and is the head of the Indigenous People of Biafra, or IPOB.
Dr. Sylvester Onyia, the organization’s president, signed a statement on Monday stating that Kanu cannot be tried and found guilty under a law that doesn’t exist.
Kanu and his defense team have been claiming that the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition Act) 2022 had repealed the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act 2013, which was the basis for his charges.
In a statement headed “A dead charge cannot kill a living man,” AVID accused the UK of remaining silent about the blatant injustice that the Nigerian government had inflicted upon Kanu.
AVID emphasized that the UK government’s silence on the issue amounted to active complicity and that the country cannot claim to be unaware of the trial’s illegal nature.
The United Kingdom cannot claim ignorance, according to the statement. Furthermore, its inaction has gone too far and become active complicity. The United Kingdom, whose citizens are being subjected to this legal abomination, is fully aware of the situation in Nigeria. However, it has opted for apathy, silence, and diplomatic stagnation.
This is not an impartial silence. It isn’t a passive one. It goes beyond simple irresponsibility. These days, it’s complicity. Because the very rule that is currently being broken against its own citizens on a daily basis originated in the United Kingdom itself, not in Nigeria, the United States, or the EU.
In Entick v. Carrington (1765) 19 Howell’s State Trials 1029 at 1066, Lord Camden established the fundamental tenet that “if it is law, it will be found in our books” more than 300 years ago. It is not legal if it is not present. Nullum crimen sine lege, which states that “no written law, no crime; no valid law, no valid charge,” is still the most straightforward expression of the doctrine.
In his Commentaries on the Laws of England (1769), Vol. I, p. 44, William Blackstone, the most recognized legal authority in the English-speaking world, reaffirmed it: “No man is to be punished but for a clear and certain breach of the law.” In The Law of the Constitution (1885), pp. 188–189, A.V. Dicey, the father of the modern rule of law, emphasized it even further: “Where there is no law, there is no offense; where there is no offense, there can be no punishment.”
In The Rule of Law (2010), p. 41, the most esteemed modern jurist in the United Kingdom, Lord Bingham, reiterated the same principle in the twenty-first century: “The criminal law must be accessible and so far as possible intelligible, clear, and predictable.”
AVID cautioned that the UK’s active complicity in Nnamdi Kanu’s persecution through silence would not be forgotten by history.
The statement further stated that in Kokkinakis v. Greece (1993) 17 EHRR 397, the European Court of Human Rights, which the UK assisted in establishing, summarized the centuries-old British doctrine by ruling that: “An offence must be clearly defined in law.”
“Nigeria is breaking this exact principle. Furthermore, the United Kingdom, the world’s creator of the principle and the country that exported it to its colonies, Commonwealth, and international human rights law, is now turning a blind eye as its own citizen is being prosecuted on a count that the Supreme Court of Nigeria has dismissed.
six charges under a law that was abolished on May 12, 2022.
In the UK, this is known. This is understood in the UK. This theory was created in the UK. The UK, however, says nothing. No longer is this silence a sign of stupidity. Negligence is no longer the case. It is an endorsement, a diplomatic approval of persecution.
“The United Kingdom is facilitating its own citizens’ persecution.” The UK has abandoned its own legal tradition, its own citizens, and the rule of law it once defended by declining to speak, step in, or even acknowledge the ridiculousness of prosecuting a British person on a dead, abolished, and judicially buried charge.
“A government is not just failing in duty when it refuses to protect its citizens’ most fundamental legal right, which is the right to be free from prosecution under a repealed law. It gives the persecutor more motivation. through quiet. by compliance. through implicit agreement. by casual diplomacy. The United Kingdom is ashamed of this, and history will document it, according to AVID.
The date of Judge James Omotosho’s decision in Kanu’s trial is November 20.
Speaking before to the verdict, however, AVID contended that the matter had been dead for years and shouldn’t have reached the judgment stage.
According to the announcement, Justice James Omotosho will try to provide a decision in a criminal matter that has been legally dead for years on November 20, 2025. Count 7 in front of him is the exact replica of the previous Count 15, which the Nigerian Supreme Court reviewed on December 15, 2023, and ruled that “the offence as laid does not exist in the body of our laws.” Count 15 is deemed incompetent and is therefore eliminated.
“It was never changed by the prosecution. As specifically instructed by the Supreme Court, they never reframed it under the appropriate legislation (CEMA). They never received an order from Justice Omotosho to follow the supreme court. Rather, they merely changed the corpse’s number and made Mazi Nnamdi Kanu enter a new plea on March 29, 2025, to a count that the nation’s highest court had already buried.
“The Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2011 as amended in 2013—a statute that the National Assembly repealed and replaced on May 12, 2022, three years prior to the new arraignment—is the basis for the other six counts.”
Kanu and his defense team’s claim that “no court in Nigeria in 2025 has jurisdiction to try any citizen, under any circumstances, on the strength of a repealed law or a count the Supreme Court has declared non-existent” was reiterated by AVID.
There is no trial here. This is a constitutional monster disguised as a judge. The 1999 Constitution’s Section 36(12) is not a recommendation. A law that is repealed is not “in force.” A count deemed “non-existent” by the Supreme Court does not constitute a charge. According to the statement, an individual who has been imprisoned for years on such an allegation is a hostage rather than an accused person.
In its decision on November 20, the group of retired and active US military soldiers of Igbo descent requested that the court dismiss the lawsuit against Kanu.
“We, American Veterans of Igbo Descent—men and women who have battled and died for constitutional democracy—state unequivocally that Justice Omotosho is not facing any legitimate charges.
As a result, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s arrest cannot be justified.
“We demand that on November 20, 2025, Justice Omotosho do the only thing allowed by the Nigerian Supreme Court and the Constitution: strike out the entire accusation and order Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s immediate, unconditional release. Anything less is not fair.
“Judicial insurrection against the Constitution is what it is. It is Supreme Court contempt. Additionally, the United Kingdom’s silence encourages persecution. Everyone is observing. “History is being recorded,” the message went on.
