The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has taken its legal battle to the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn the Court of Appeal’s recent judgment affirming the proscription of the group.
On January 30, the Court of Appeal in Abuja upheld the federal government’s 2017 decision to ban IPOB, ruling that the proscription was lawful. A three-member panel, led by Justice Hamma Barka, dismissed IPOB’s appeal, labelling it “unmeritorious.”
The proscription dates back to 2017 when a Federal High Court in Abuja 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.
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. The appeal is based on five legal grounds, including claims that the lower court wrongly prioritized national security over IPOB’s right to a fair hearing.
IPOB argues in its appeal made available to TheNiche on Saturday 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.”
“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 reads.
“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.”
