IPOB approaches Appeal Court, wants proscription set aside

The Indegenous People of Biafra, IPOB, on Thursday, approached the Court of Appeal in Abuja to challenge the order that proscribed and designated it as a terrorist organisation.

The pro-Biafra group, through its lawyer, Ifeanyi.Ejiofor, wants the appellate court to set aside in its entirety, the ruling of the Acting Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Abdul Abdu- Kafarati, which on September 15, 2017, outlawed
its activities in Nigeria.

The High Court had proscribed the IPOB on the strength of an ex-parte motion the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, SAN, filed on behalf of the federal government.

Justice Kafafati had specifically declared as illegal, all activities of the group, particularly in the South-east and South-South regions of the country The Judge had also directed the AGF to ensure that he published the order proscribing IPOB in the official gazette, as well as in two national dailies.

In a follow-up ruling on January 22, 2018, the court dismissed a motion IPOB filed to challenge the legal validity of the proscription order which AGF said was surreptitiously obtained by the AGF.


The group had alleged that the AGF suppressed and misrepresented facts in the affidavit evidence he tendered before the court, adding that the proscription order was tantamount to declaring over 30million Nigerians of Igbo extraction as terrorists.

While dismissing the motion, Justice Abdu- Kafarati said he was satisfied that IPOB constituted a threat to national security.

Meantime, in its five grounds of appeal Thursday, the IPOB contended 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.

It told the appellate court that the lower court Judge failed to evaluate, consider or mention in his rulings, affidavit evidence that was tendered to establish that IPOB was not a violent
organisation.

“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.