From Okey Sampson, Umuahia
A human rights lawyer, Christopher Chidera, has called out the Government of Kenya over its role in the abduction and rendition of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Nnamdi Kanu, to Nigeria, blaming that country squarely for Kanu’s travails.
Chidera, in a statement, accused the Kenyan government of playing a dubious role with reference to its apparent disregard for the Constitution of Kenya, the Kenyan Extradition Act, and international treaty obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Mutual Assistance
Within the Commonwealth Act, and the London Scheme on Extradition within the Commonwealth.
Chidera, in condemning Kenya’s role in aiding the abduction of Kanu without legal process, said that by doing so, the country violated the Constitution of Kenya (2010), under Article 29, which guarantees freedom and security of the person, prohibiting arbitrary detention, torture, or inhuman treatment.
The human rights lawyer went further to say that the country disregarded the Kenyan Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act of 1968, which mandates that extradition requests be formally processed, with the individual given an opportunity to contest the transfer in court.
He said it was unfortunate that no such process was followed, as Kenya has denied initiating extradition proceedings, suggesting an extrajudicial operation.
Accusing Kenya of allegedly torturing Kanu while in detention, Chidera noted, “Article 25 of the Kenyan Constitution explicitly prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, rights that are non-derogable. If Kenyan officials participated in or acquiesced to such acts, this constitutes a direct violation.
“Kenya, as a signatory to the ICCPR, is bound by Article 7, which prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. The alleged actions also breach Article 9, which protects against arbitrary arrest and detention, as no legal basis for Kanu’s detention was established.
“The Kenyan government’s alleged role in Nnamdi Kanu’s abduction, torture, and illegal rendition to Nigeria reflects a troubling disregard for its own Constitution, the Kenyan Extradition Act, and treaty obligations under the ICCPR, Mutual Assistance Within the Commonwealth Act, and the London Scheme.
“Whether through direct involvement or acquiescence by rogue agents, Kenya’s actions or inaction enabled a breach of domestic and international law. The lack of formal extradition proceedings, coupled with official denials despite credible allegations, points to a deliberate effort to evade accountability, potentially for political or diplomatic gain.
“This incident not only jeopardised Kanu’s rights but also damaged Kenya’s reputation as a rule-of-law state within the Commonwealth and global community,” he stated.
Chidera was emphatic that the Kenyan government’s alleged role in Kanu’s abduction, torture, and illegal rendition to Nigeria reflects a troubling disregard for its own Constitution, the Kenyan Extradition Act, and treaty obligations under the ICCPR, Mutual Assistance Within the Commonwealth Act, and the London Scheme.