IPOB challenges proscription ruling at Supreme Court

The Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB) has taken its legal battle to the supreme court, seeking to overturn the judgment of the court of appeal that affirmed the group’s proscription.

On January 30, the court of appeal in Abuja upheld the federal government’s decision to ban IPOB. A three-member panel, led by Justice Hamma Barka, ruled unanimously, dismissing IPOB’s appeal as “unmeritorious.” The court declared that the proscription was lawfully executed to address threats to national security.

The proscription dates back to 2017, when the federal high court in Abuja, presided over by Justice Abdul Kafarati, classified IPOB’s activities as acts of terrorism.

Justice Kafarati ruled that the group’s actions, particularly in the south-east and south-south regions, constituted terrorism and illegality. Subsequently, former President Muhammadu Buhari issued a presidential proclamation to officially ban the group.

Read also: Court declares Lakurawa sect terrorist group

Grounds of Appeal

In a notice of appeal dated February 7, IPOB, represented by lead counsel Aloy Ejimakor, challenged the appellate court’s judgment on five key grounds.

The group argued that the appeal court erred in law by prioritizing national security concerns over its right to a fair hearing. IPOB contended that the court’s interpretation of the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 allowed for the trial court’s decision to be made without notifying or hearing the group, violating their constitutional rights.

In the appeal, IPOB also stated that the appellate court breached constitutional provisions that prohibit discrimination based on ethnic group, place of origin, or political opinion, even in cases involving national security threats.

Additionally, the group criticized the court’s reliance on a “preponderance of evidence” to affirm the proscription, arguing that allegations of terrorism, murder, and bomb-making require proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Lastly, IPOB accused the court of overstepping its constitutional role by effectively proclaiming a state of emergency, a power reserved for the president and subject to specific constitutional procedures.

The supreme court’s decision on the matter is now eagerly awaited, as the case continues to raise questions about the balance between national security and individual rights in Nigeria’s judicial system.