•Says it’s seeking clarification on circumstances of arrest
•Kenya denies involvement in capture
Charles Ajunwa in Lagos and Michael Olugbode in Abuja
The British Government yesterday refused to categorically accept or deny allegations that it assisted the leader of proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, with another passport after he escaped from Nigeria.
Kanu was first arrested in Nigeria on October 14, 2015, following campaigns for the Sovereign State of Biafra and arraigned for treason. He was granted bail in April 2017 but fled the country. The IPOB leader was rearrested last Sunday in an unnamed country and returned to court to continue his trial.
THISDAY, in a series of email exchanges with the British High Commission in Abuja, had requested clarifications on how the IPOB leader obtained fresh British passport.
In the most recent email, THISDAY enquired: “We need some further clarification, please. Are you saying the British government did not assist Mr. Nnamdi Kanu in procuring a new British passport? The information we have is that after escaping from Nigeria through the land borders, the British government assisted him in procuring another passport in the High Commission of one of our neighbouring countries, knowing at the time he was a fugitive running away from justice in Nigeria. Do you categorically deny the British government involvement in this? In relation to (b), are you implying that since Mr. Kanu’s trial was not in a British court, you do not reckon with the Nigerian court which impounded his passports?”
In reaction, the High Commission said in order to respond to the question, it would need to send the email to “London” because “it does not specially relate to the British High Commission in Nigeria unlike the question you clarified yesterday and which we have answered.”
Dean Hurlock of the British High Commission, after referring the enquiry to “London”, sent the reply yesterday and it read: “We are seeking clarification about the circumstances of the arrest from the Nigerian government. Our policy on issuing passports to those who are entitled to them is clear and publicly available; we are not going to discuss any individual case.”
Of course, the reply did not address the issues raised by THISDAY. Kanu could not have obtained a new British passport without the approval of the British Government.
In the earlier email, THISDAY enquired from the British High Commission: “The specific allegation we want addressed is whether the British High Commission assisted Mr. Nnamdi Kanu, whose Nigerian and British passports had been impounded by an Abuja court, in jumping bail by issuing him another British passport which he used to travel out of Nigeria and had been using to travel until his re-arrest. How could Kanu have acquired another British travel document in Nigeria without processing it at your High Commission?”
Jonathan Bacon of the British High Commission replied saying the question refers explicitly to British High Commission and that his response earlier directly addressed this allegation: “We can confirm that the British High Commission in Nigeria did not issue any travel documents for Mr Kanu. We therefore reaffirm the categorical denial sent to you yesterday. Your question (b) referred to London, hence my reply yesterday at 17:23 to say that I needed to ask London for a view on the question, and that given the time the email was sent, I might not receive a reply until the morning.”
Kenya Denies Involvement in Arrest, Repatriation of Kanu
Meanwhile, Kenya High Commissioner to Nigeria, Ambassador Wilfred Machage has denied the involvement of his government in the arrest and extradition of the IPOB leader.
The Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Abubakar Malami, had said the IPOB leader was “intercepted through the collaborative efforts of Nigerian intelligence and security services abroad”, but he did not disclose the country where Kanu was arrested.
Kanu’s family later alleged that the IPOB leader was arrested in Kenya with the aid of the Kenyan government and returned to Nigeria. Some publications also reported that the Kenyan President, Uhuru Kenyatta, was privy to Kanu’s extradition.
Addressing a press conference yesterday in Abuja, Machage, dismissed all the allegations and challenged anyone with evidence linking his country to the incident to produce it.
He described as “unfortunate and libelous” the linking of President Kenyatta to Kanu’s arrest.
The Kenyan High Commissioner said the allegation was “concocted” to pitch Nigerians in the South-east against Kenyans.
He said: “I want to address this allegation by denying that Kenya was involved in the alleged arrest in Kenya and extradition to Nigeria of Mr. Kanu. To us, therefore, these allegations are fictional, imaginary, and deliberately concocted to fuel antagonistic feelings among a certain section of the Nigerian people.
“I want to challenge anyone with facts relating to this alleged arrest in Kenya to present those facts. This includes when, where, how, and who was particularly involved in the alleged arrest.
“I wish to categorically state that we are not happy at this ridiculous attempt at dragging the name of Kenya and President Uhuru Kenyatta in this matter of arrest and extradition of the self-proclaimed IPOB leader.
“Nigeria is a sovereign country. It’s your country. Instead of facing the Kenyan High Commission in Nigeria to ask some of these questions, you should face your government. The government of Nigeria knows how they arrested him. They have the answers, not me.”
He said the government and people of Kenya were also “disturbed, dismayed and astonished by the unfortunate statement on the alleged arrest of Kanu in Kenya.”
Machage added: “The Government of Kenya is particularly appalled by the spurious, derogatory, and libelous mention of our dear President on this matter as has been reported.
“I, as the High Commissioner of the Republic of Kenya to the Federal Republic of Nigeria, wish to categorically emphasise that our country, Kenya, continues to enjoy cordial diplomatic relations with both the Federal Government of Nigeria and its great accommodating and amiable citizens.”
He noted that Kenya “is committed to sustaining the historical bond of friendship between the two countries and further cement diplomatic relations with the view to ensuring beneficial relations.”
He urged that Kenya should not be dragged into the issue as she has no question to answer but rather that the citizens of Nigeria should approach the Nigerian government for an explanation of where Kanu was arrested.
Last Thursday, Kenya’s Director-General of Immigration Services, Alexander Muteshi, also dismissed the claim that Kanu was arrested in his country.
While on the run, Kanu piloted the affairs of IPOB from abroad, and after his re-arrest, the federal government arraigned him before the Federal High Court in Abuja, where a judge granted the Department of State Services (DSS) permission to keep him in its custody until July 26 when his trial would continue. Addressing a press conference yesterday in Abuja, Machage, dismissed all the allegations and challenged anyone with evidence linking his country to the incident to produce it.
He described as “unfortunate and libelous” the linking of President Kenyatta to Kanu’s arrest.
The Kenyan High Commissioner said the allegation was “concocted” to pitch Nigerians in the South-east against Kenyans.
He said: “I want to address this allegation by denying that Kenya was involved in the alleged arrest in Kenya and extradition to Nigeria of Mr. Kanu. To us, therefore, these allegations are fictional, imaginary, and deliberately concocted to fuel antagonistic feelings among a certain section of the Nigerian people.
“I want to challenge anyone with facts relating to this alleged arrest in Kenya to present those facts. This includes when, where, how, and who was particularly involved in the alleged arrest.
“I wish to categorically state that we are not happy at this ridiculous attempt at dragging the name of Kenya and President Uhuru Kenyatta in this matter of arrest and extradition of the self-proclaimed IPOB leader.
“Nigeria is a sovereign country. It’s your country. Instead of facing the Kenyan High Commission in Nigeria to ask some of these questions, you should face your government. The government of Nigeria knows how they arrested him. They have the answers, not me.”
He said the government and people of Kenya were also “disturbed, dismayed and astonished by the unfortunate statement on the alleged arrest of Kanu in Kenya.”
Machage added: “The Government of Kenya is particularly appalled by the spurious, derogatory, and libelous mention of our dear President on this matter as has been reported.
“I, as the High Commissioner of the Republic of Kenya to the Federal Republic of Nigeria, wish to categorically emphasise that our country, Kenya, continues to enjoy cordial diplomatic relations with both the Federal Government of Nigeria and its great accommodating and amiable citizens.”
He noted that Kenya “is committed to sustaining the historical bond of friendship between the two countries and further cement diplomatic relations with the view to ensuring beneficial relations.”
He urged that Kenya should not be dragged into the issue as she has no question to answer but rather that the citizens of Nigeria should approach the Nigerian government for an explanation of where Kanu was arrested.
Last Thursday, Kenya’s Director-General of Immigration Services, Alexander Muteshi, also dismissed the claim that Kanu was arrested in his country.
While on the run, Kanu piloted the affairs of IPOB from abroad, and after his re-arrest, the federal government arraigned him before the Federal High Court in Abuja, where a judge granted the Department of State Services (DSS) permission to keep him in its custody until July 26 when his trial would continue.
