The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has approached the Supreme Court to challenge the order of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, which affirmed the proscription of the group.
The Court of Appeal had on January 30 upheld the Federal Government’s 2017 decision to ban IPOB.
The court held that the proscription was lawful.
A three-member panel of the Appellate Court, led by Justice Hamma Barka, dismissed IPOB’s appeal, describing it as “unmeritorious.”
Sunday Telegraph recalls that the Federal High Court in Abuja had in 2017 declared IPOB’s activities as acts of terrorism.
The ruling, delivered by Justice Abdul Kafarati, cited the group’s actions—particularly in the South-East and South-South regions—as justification for the ban.
This decision was later reinforced by a presidential proclamation signed by former President Muhammadu Buhari.
However, in its appeal dated February 7, IPOB, through its lead counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the Court of Appeal’s ruling.
IPOB premised its appeal on five legal grounds, including claims that the lower court wrongly prioritized national security over IPOB’s right to a fair hearing.
The Appellant submitted that the appellate court erred when, “it interpreted ‘Judge in Chambers’ as is provided in the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 to mean that the appellant had no right to be put on notice or to be heard before the trial court.
It further argued that court below erred in law when it affirmed a decision that breached a non-derogable provision of the Constitution that prohibits subjecting the Appellant (and its members thereof) to disabilities or restrictions on the basis of their ethnic group, place of origin or political opinion, even when any threat to national security is alleged.
Also in its ground of appeal, IPOB submitted that the court below erred in law when it held that the proceedings or procedure by which the Appellant was proscribed and declared a terrorist organization, being ‘propelled by civil procedure’ does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt but by preponderance of the evidence, especially when the allegations of terrorism, murder, bomb-making, threats to life and indeed all the allegations made against the Appellant by the Respondent were all allegations of crime that required proof beyond reasonable doubt.
It also argued that the court below erred in law when it arrogated to itself the power to proclaim a state of emergency (even though termed threat to national security/emergency by the court below) when such power is — by the Constitution — reserved to the President of Nigeria, who also must take such step in accordance with the provisions set out in the Constitution.
IPOB cited the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which guarantees the right to self-determination, arguing that its agitation for Biafra falls within the legal boundaries of international human rights law.
The group relied on judicial precedents that cautioned against indefinite ex-parte orders, emphasizing the need for due process.
IPOB is however seeking an order to reverse the lower court’s decision and to nullify its proscription.
