The Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB) has filed an appeal with the Supreme Court challenging the Court of Appeal’s decision to uphold its proscription.
On Thursday, January 30, the Court of Appeal in Abuja ruled in favor of the federal government, affirming the 2017 declaration that IPOB’s activities were unlawful.
The three-member panel unanimously concluded that the government’s action to ban the group was legally justified.
Presiding Judge Hamma Barka dismissed IPOB’s appeal, calling it without merit.
The legal battle began in 2017 when the Federal High Court in Abuja declared IPOB’s actions as acts of terrorism.
Judge Abdul Kafarati had ruled that IPOB’s activities, particularly in the southeastern and southern regions of Nigeria, constituted terrorism and illegality.
Following this ruling, former President Muhammadu Buhari issued a presidential proclamation officially proscribing the group.
In its appeal filed on February 7, IPOB, represented by lead counsel Aloy Ejimakor, is asking the Supreme Court to overturn the Court of Appeal’s judgment.
The appeal is based on five grounds, with the group arguing that the appellate court erred in prioritizing national security over IPOB’s right to a fair hearing.
IPOB also contends that the court misinterpreted the Judge in Chambers provision in the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, denying the group the opportunity to be heard before the trial court.
“The 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,” the appeal read.
“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 are all allegations of crime that require proof beyond reasonable doubt.
“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.”
Comments