The post further alleges that the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD) escalated the matter to the United Nations Security Council and the United States Department of State after Nigeria failed to release Kanu from the Sokoto correctional facility.

The five-minute, eight-second video shared by Selected TV on Facebook — featuring superimposed images of Kanu, Donald Trump and Bola Tinubu — has garnered thousands of reactions, comments and shares. A male voice narrates the claim in the background, while several Facebook users expressed support in the comment section.

“That 60-day ultimatum expired exactly 48 hours ago, and because the government failed to open the gates of the Sokoto Correctional Center, the United Nations has officially triggered the non-compliance mechanism,” the post alleged.

Kanu was convicted on terrorism-related charges on November 20, 2025, and sentenced to life imprisonment after being found guilty on counts 1, 4, 5 and 6 of a seven-count charge. He also received 20 years’ imprisonment on count 3 and five years on count 7.

UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

The UNWGAD is a special procedure of the United Nations Human Rights Council. Its opinions are not legally binding on member states.

Although the Working Group can issue communications and adopt opinions declaring a detention arbitrary — and may recommend remedies such as release and compensation — it does not possess enforcement powers. It cannot issue binding ultimatums under international law, nor can it automatically trigger sanctions against a country.

The Working Group also does not forward “non-compliance reports” to the Security Council for enforcement action, order automatic asset seizures or visa bans, or activate punitive measures against sovereign states. Its decisions remain recommendations, and compliance depends on the state concerned.

Verification

A review of UN records shows that before Kanu’s conviction, the Working Group issued Opinion No. 25/2022, which described his arrest and detention as arbitrary and called for his release and compensation.

However, there is no publicly available record from the UNWGAD indicating that a new 60-day ultimatum was issued, that such a deadline has expired, or that Nigeria has been referred to the Security Council over Kanu’s detention.

There is also no evidence that any “non-compliance mechanism” has been activated; that the US government has announced sanctions tied to a UN deadline; or that Nigerian assets are at risk of automatic seizure in relation to this matter.

A search of official Nigerian government channels shows no statement confirming the claim. Given the gravity of such an allegation, any official enforcement action by the UN would likely have generated widespread international media coverage.

UNWGAD opinions do not create automatic release mechanisms. Compliance depends on the sovereign state and its domestic legal framework. International treaties to which Nigeria is a party do not contain provisions that automatically free detainees if a UN working group recommendation is ignored.

In January, a similar claim was fact-checked, and Kanu’s legal counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, stated there is no such process as “revisiting” Kanu’s case at the federal high court.

Verdict

The claim that the UN has triggered a binding enforcement process compelling Nigeria to release Nnamdi Kanu is false.