The Court of Appeal in Abuja has reserved its decision on an appeal by the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) challenging its designation as a terrorist organization by the Federal Government.
A three-judge panel, headed by Justice Hamma Barka, adjourned the case for judgment following the adoption of final arguments by both parties’ legal teams.
Representing the Federal Government, Oyilade Koleosho from the Federal Ministry of Justice was present, while IPOB was represented by a legal team led by Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Chukwuma-Machukwu Umeh. IPOB’s detained leader, Nnamdi Kanu, had previously applied to join the case as an interested party.
Read Also: Atiku Reacts As Court Order Restricts Rivers Allocation
IPOB seeks to overturn a ruling made by the late Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Abdul Abdu-Kafarati, who, on September 15, 2017, declared the group’s activities illegal in Nigeria.
This ruling followed an ex-parte motion filed by former Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, on behalf of the Federal Government.
Justice Kafarati had not only banned IPOB’s activities, especially in the South-East and South-South regions but also instructed the AGF to publicize the proscription in the official gazette and two national newspapers.
On January 22, 2018, the high court dismissed a motion by IPOB challenging the legitimacy of the proscription order, with IPOB arguing that it had been obtained through misrepresentation.
IPOB alleged that the order implied labeling over 30 million Igbos as terrorists. Justice Abdu-Kafarati, however, ruled that IPOB posed a threat to national security and dismissed arguments that IPOB could not be sued since it was unregistered in Nigeria.
In its appeal, IPOB claims Justice Abdu-Kafarati erred by deeming that President Muhammadu Buhari’s approval, required under Section 2 (1) (C) of the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act, 2013, was satisfied by an AGF memo dated September 15, 2017.
IPOB also contends that the lower court failed to consider affidavit evidence demonstrating that it is not a violent organization.
Read Also: Court Delivers Ruling In Suit Seeking To Nullify Tinubu’s Appointment Of Ebie As NDDC Chairman
“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 neighbouring 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 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 said.
IPOB’s lawyer, Umeh, SAN, urged the appellate court to allow the appeal, arguing that the organization was denied a fair hearing.
On the other hand, Federal Government counsel Koleosho disputed the allegation and requested the appellate court to dismiss the appeal.
After hearing both sides, the Appeal Court panel announced that it would notify the parties of the judgment date.
https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaihFajBadmT29ufud2Z
