The Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal has reserved its judgment on an appeal filed by the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), contesting its designation as a terrorist organization by the Federal Government.
A three-member panel led by Justice Hamma Barka adjourned the matter after both IPOB and the government, represented by their legal teams, concluded their final arguments.
Counsel from the Federal Ministry of Justice, Oyilade Koleosho, appeared for the government, while a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Chukwuma-Machukwu Umeh, led IPOB’s defense team.
Pay Attention To: Ekiti Govt Pays N300m Compensation To 377 Land Owners For Airport Construction
IPOB’s detained leader, Nnamdi Kanu, had previously requested to join as an interested party in the appeal.
The group’s appeal challenges the 2017 ruling by the late Justice Abdul Abdu-Kafarati, who issued an order that effectively outlawed IPOB’s activities across Nigeria.
The group is asking the appellate court to overturn this ruling, asserting that the proscription lacks a legal basis and that IPOB has been unfairly branded a terrorist organization.
Justice Abdu-Kafarati’s ruling, secured through an ex-parte motion from former Attorney-General Abubakar Malami, declared IPOB’s activities illegal, especially within Nigeria’s South-East and South-South regions.
The judge also mandated the Attorney-General to publish the proscription order in the official gazette and two national newspapers. A subsequent motion by IPOB to overturn the ruling was dismissed in January 2018, with the court maintaining that the group’s actions posed a security threat.
In its appeal, IPOB contends that the proscription did not meet the legal requirements outlined in the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act of 2013.
The organization argues that it lacks any history of violence, stating that its activities are characterized by peaceful assemblies and symbolic displays, rather than armed confrontations.
Pay Attention To: Stakeholders Advocate Increased Women Representation In Governance
IPOB claims that the evidence supporting its non-violent nature was overlooked by the initial ruling.
IPOB further questioned why groups like Fulani herdsmen, often linked with violent incidents, have not been similarly designated, suggesting that selective enforcement is at play.
The appellate court, after hearing from both parties, indicated that a date for judgment would be communicated in due course.
