…..Seeks reversal of Appeal Court’s decision
Group’s lawyer says ‘nation of 70m can’t be terrorists’
The Indigenous People of Biafra, (IPOB), has approached the Supreme Court to challenge the January 30, 2025 judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja which affirmed its designation as a terrorist group and subsequent proscription by the Federal Government.
The detained IPOB leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu has also reiterated his innocence, saying nobody should beg for him.
The group filed a five-ground notice of appeal to challenge the January 30, 2025 judgment on Friday, February 7 through its lawyer, Aloy Ejimakor.
The suit is marked SC/CA/A/214/2018 and has the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) as the sole respondent.
The group claims that its proscription is a violation of constitutional provisions, particularly the right to a fair hearing, as enshrined in Section 36 of the Constitution.
It faults the Court of Appeal’s judgement, arguing that the lower court erred in law in upholding an ex parte order that led to its designation as a terrorist organization, without affording it the opportunity to be heard.
The Appeal Court, according to IPOB, misinterpreted the Constitution by prioritising national security concerns over its right to fair hearing, adding that the proceedings leading to its proscription failed to meet the standard of proof required in criminal cases because allegations of terrorism required proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Besides, IPOB is also contending that its classification as a terrorist group unfairly subjects its members, who are primarily of Igbo ethnic origin, to discrimination contrary to Section 42 of the Constitution and says the Court of Appeal wrongly equated proceedings before a “judge in chambers” with an ex parte hearing, thereby denying IPOB the right to present its case.
It also says the Court of Appeal exceeded its jurisdiction by effectively declaring a “state of emergency,” a power constitutionally reserved for the President under Section 305 of the Constitution.
Citing the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which it claimed guarantees the right to self-determination, IPOB argues that its agitation for the state of Biafra falls within the legal boundaries of international human rights law.
The Court of Appeal had, in a unanimous of a three-member panel on January 30 judgment upheld the argument by Federal Government’s counsel , Oyin Koleosho, that the state acted lawfully in proscribing IPOB, whose activities, it claimed, threatened the nation’s continued existence and the security of citizens.
In the lead judgment, Justice Hamma Barka resolved all the issues raised for determination against the appellant – IPOB.
He consequently declared the appeal unmeritorious and dismissed it.
He faulted the claim by the appellant (IPOB), represented by Chukwuma Machukwu Umeh (SAN), that the procedure adopted by the Federal Government in proscribing the group was flawed.
Justice Barka held that the government fully complied with the provisions of the relevant laws, particularly Section 2 (1) of the Terrorism (Prevention) Act by adopting the ex-parte proceedings.
“Such ex-parte proceedings, unless tainted, do not constitute any breach of the right to a fair hearing of parties before the court,” he said.
Justice Barka adopted the position of the Supreme Court in the case of Dokubo Asari against the Federal Republic of Nigeria to the effect that where national security is threatened or there is the likelihood of it being threatened, human rights or individual rights or those responsible take a second place.
He added: “Human rights or individual rights must be suspended until national security can be protected or well taken care of. This is not anything new.
“The corporate existence of Nigeria as a united, harmonious, indivisible and indissoluble sovereign nation is certainly greater than any citizen’s liberty or rights.
“While the security of this nation is in jeopardy, and it survives in pieces rather than in peace, individual’s liberty or rights cannot exist.”
Justice Barka said while the claim by the appellant’s lawyer that the founders of the group had good ideas to achieve could be possible, there is no doubt that IPOB, based on its activities, was infiltrated by hoodlums, operating and surviving on mayhem, which is worrisome and quite evident to all well -meaning Nigerians.
He noted that since IPOB became known for perpetrating violence, the Federal Government could not be blamed for taking the steps it took to proscribe and designate the group as a terrorist organisation.
The judge said there was sufficient evidence that former President Muhammadu Buhari gave approval for the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Abubakar Malami (SAN) to apply to the court for the proscription order in compliance with Section 2(1) of the Terrorism (Prevention) Act.
The IPOB counsel in a post on his Facebook wall yesterday said of the appeal: “The proscription of IPOB will not stand because it is tantamount to proscribing NDIGBO & their cousins in other parts of Nigeria. A nation of 70 million cannot be terrorists. We’re headed to the Supreme Court.”
Nnamdi Kanu: No one should beg for my release; I committed no offence
In a separate statement yesterday, Ejimakor who said he visited the IPOB leader, Nnamdi Kanu in detention on Friday, quoted him as saying he does not want anyone to beg for his release as he has not committed any offence.
Kanu was apparently reacting to recent appeals to the government by groups and individuals for his release.
His words: “During my visitation with Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu yesterday, he made it abundantly clear that while he is deeply appreciative of the efforts and the widespread calls being made by well-meaning individuals and groups to secure his release, he, however, instructed his legal team to issue the following clarifications:
“The matter of releasing Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is not an act of mercy, pardon, executive clemency or even amnesty. Instead, it should be an act of simply complying with the subsisting Federal High Court judgment that declared his detention as unconstitutional or even the extant international tribunal decisions that separately declared his detention as unlawful. Alternatively, the decision to free him from detention and discontinue his infamous prosecution can be made by simply resorting to the constitutional provisions that empower the Attorney-General of the Federation (on the directives of the President) to discontinue any prosecution.
“Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is adamant that nobody should plead or beg anybody on his behalf because he has committed no crime. Self-determination which is the real issue that got twisted to suddenly become a high crime is an inalienable right guaranteed under the laws of Nigeria, the United Nations, the United Kingdom and Kenya. Thus, the perverse and unlawful criminalisation of his exercise of this right should not unwittingly be encouraged through some misguided appeals for pardon, clemency or mercy. Thus, releasing Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is not an act of mercy or pardon but an act of abiding by the rule of law.
“In as much as those calling for his release are sincere, their calls for pardon or clemency may be misconstrued as a green light to the executive branch or even the courts to violate the rule of law by continuing to subject Mazi Nnamdi Kanu to a prosecution or trial that does not comport with the tenets of the Constitution and Nigeria’s treaty obligations.
“Instead of begging, those desiring his release should emulate the language and tact used by Afenifere, Ohaneze, World Igbo Congress (WIC), ranking members of the National Assembly, American Military Veterans of Igbo Descent (AVID), Ambassadors for Self Determination (based in America), the international community and a host of others who have made it clear that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu deserves to be released because he has committed no offence known to law. If truth be told, it is Nigeria’s executive branch which extraordinarily renditioned Mazi Nnamdi Kanu that should show contrition for resorting to extraordinary rendition which is a State crime under international law and and the common law. If any begging must be done, it should be directed to the Courts to conduct his cases and that of IPOB with the utmost impartiality and adherence to the rule of law, equity and good conscience.
“Most importantly, Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu sincerely thanks everyone working assiduously towards the restoration of security, tranquillity and good order in his beloved Igboland.”
