Appeal Court Reserves Judgment On IPOB’s Appeal Against Its Proscription By FG

The Court of Appeal in Abuja has delayed judgement in the appeal submitted by the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) challenging its designation as a terrorist organization by the Federal Government.

The three-judge panel, presided over by Justice Hamma Barka, scheduled the judgment date following the conclusion of final arguments from both sides.

During the session on Thursday, Mr. Oyilade Koleosho represented the government from the Federal Ministry of Justice, while the legal team for IPOB was headed by Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Mr. Chukwuma-Machukwu Umeh.

IPOB is aiming to reverse a 2017 decision made by the late Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Abdul Abdu-Kafarati, which deemed its activities illegal and labeled the group as a terrorist organization.

Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of IPOB, who is currently in detention, had previously sought to join the appeal as an interested party in the case identified as FHC/CA/A/214/2018.

The order for proscription stemmed from an ex-parte motion submitted by the then Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, SAN, on behalf of the Federal Government, which led to the classification of IPOB’s activities as unlawful, particularly in the South-East and South-South regions.

Justice Abdu-Kafarati’s ruling also required the Attorney-General to publish the proscription in Nigeria’s official gazette and in two national newspapers.

Don’t miss out on any real-time information. Join our WhatsApp group to stay updated.

CLICK HERE TO JOIN

In a subsequent ruling on January 22, 2018, the court rejected a motion filed by IPOB that sought to contest the legal validity of the proscription order, which it claimed was obtained without proper procedure by the Attorney-General.

IPOB has claimed that the former Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) concealed and distorted facts in the affidavit he presented to the court, asserting that the order for proscription effectively labeled over 30 million Nigerians of Igbo descent as terrorists.

In dismissing the motion, Justice Abdu-Kafarati expressed his belief that IPOB posed a significant threat to national security.

He dismissed the argument that the group, not being a registered entity in Nigeria, could not be legitimately sued by the Federal Government.

The court asserted that IPOB’s claim of being registered in more than 40 countries outside Nigeria did not absolve it from legal responsibilities if its actions were found to contravene any laws within Nigeria.

Nevertheless, in its five grounds of appeal, IPOB argued that Justice Abdu-Kafarati made a legal error and caused a miscarriage of justice by ruling that the necessary statutory condition requiring the approval of President Muhammadu Buhari under Section 2 (1) (C) of the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act, 2013, was met based on a memorandum issued by the AGF on September 15, 2017.

The group informed the appellate court that the lower court judge neglected to assess, consider, or reference the affidavit evidence presented to demonstrate that IPOB was not a violent organization.

“Proper findings of facts built on a meticulous evaluation of Affidavit evidence placed before the Court below, will resolve whether the activities and characters of the Appellant as clearly distinguished vide compelling exhibits placed before the Court, meet the threshold definition of terrorism acts, as contemplated under Section 2 (i) (a) (b) & (c) of the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act, 2013.

“The Appellant’s activities as contested in its written submission before the Trial Court, strongly supported by credible Affidavit evidence falls short of acts of terrorism as contemplated under Section 2 (1) (A) (B) & (C) of the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act; this submission was not considered by the Learned Trial Judge.

“The Learned trial Judge justified the granting of the Exparte Order of 20th September 2017, vide finding of facts predicated on issues he formulated suo motu, ostensibly closing his eyes to facts, as well as documents that show that the Appellant is a group of persons holding common political belief largely made up of indigenous people of Igbo extraction and other neighboring regions merely exercising their constitutional rights to self-determination, within the bounds of relevant international instruments and conventions.

“Affidavit evidence placed before the Trial Court shows in clear terms that the Appellant does not possess any form of arms, or weapons in the exercise of their constitutionally guaranteed rights; or have any history of violence or had engaged in any form of killings; the activities of the Appellant are essentially characterized by moving in groups with cardboards and placards in their hands, singing, blowing whistles and flutes, in agitation for self-determination; these compelling facts clearly supported by credible evidence were not evaluated by the Court below in its finding of facts.

“Activities of the Appellant as demonstrated before the lower court, is in sharp contrast with characters of notorious groups that have even used violence such as FULANI HERDSMEN (which has been declared the 4th most dangerous terrorist organization in the world), and none of these violent group has earned terrorist tag, because the President most probably considered them as possessing or professing protected political beliefs,” IPOB added.

In advocating for the acceptance of the appeal, Umeh, SAN, representing IPOB, contended that the organization was deprived of a fair hearing.

Conversely, Koleosho, the lawyer for the Federal Government, refuted this claim and requested that the appellate court reject the appeal.

Following the consideration of arguments from both parties, the panel of the Appeal Court indicated that it would inform the involved parties of the date for the judgment.