- Detained leader of IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu, had earlier applied to be joined as an interested party in the suit
The Court of Appeal, Abuja division, on Thursday, reserved judgment in an appeal instituted by the Indigenous People of Biafra, challenging its proscription as a terrorist organisation by the Federal Government.
IPOB in its appeal, is praying the appellate court to nullify in its entirety, the ruling of the late former Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Abdul Abdu-Kafarati, which, on September 15, 2017, outlawed its activities in Nigeria.
The trial court proscribed IPOB following an ex parte motion filed by the immediate past Attorney General of the Federation Abubakar Malami (SAN), on behalf of the Federal Government.
Justice Abdu-Kafarati, in a ruling, declared all IPOB activities as illegal, specifically the group’s activities in the South East and South-South regions of the country.
He restrained any person or group of persons from participating in any of the group’s activities.
He further held that IPOB constituted a threat to national security while he dismissed the argument that the group, not being a registered entity in Nigeria, could not be validly sued by the Federal Government.
Justice Abdu-Kafarati held that the fact that IPOB claimed that it was registered in over 40 countries in the world aside from Nigeria did not exculpate it from legal liabilities if it was found to have, by its activities, violated any law in Nigeria.
The late CJ directed the AGF to publish the order proscribing the group in two national dailies and an online platform.
On January 22, 2018, in another ruling, the court dismissed a motion IPOB filed to challenge the legal validity of the proscription order, which the group claimed was surreptitiously obtained by the AGF.
On Thursday, a three-man panel of the Court of Appeal, led by Justice Hamma Barka, adjourned IPOB’s appeal marked CA/A/214/2018 for judgment, after counsel for the Federal Government and IPOB consolidated their briefs and adopted their final addresses.
Mr Oyilade Koleosho from the Federal Ministry of Justice appeared for the AGF while Chukwuma-Machukwu Umeh (SAN) appeared for IPOB.
Meanwhile, the detained leader of IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu, had earlier applied to be joined as an interested party in the suit.
IPOB, in its appeal, claimed that the then AGF suppressed and misrepresented facts in the affidavit evidence he tendered before the court.
The group also contended that the proscription order was tantamount to declaring over 30 million Nigerians of Igbo extraction as terrorists.
The group, in an appeal predicated on five grounds, argued that Justice Abdu-Kafarati erred in law and occasioned a miscarriage of justice when he ruled that the mandatory statutory condition requiring President Muhammadu Buhari’s approval, under Section 2 (1) (C) of the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act, 2013, was satisfied, on the authority of a memo the AGF issued on September 15, 2017.
The group said Justice Abdu-Kafarati failed to evaluate, consider or mention in his rulings, affidavit and evidence tendered before the lower court to establish that IPOB was not a violent organisation.
The group said “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 ex parte 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 characterised 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 fourth most dangerous terrorist organisation 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.”
Umeh prayed the court to allow the appeal, while he told the court that IPOB was denied a fair hearing.
Koleosho, on his part, denied the allegation while he asked the court to dismiss the appeal.
After taking arguments from both parties, the panel reserved judgment and declared that it would communicate the judgment date to the parties in the suit.
Discussion about this post