The Court of Appeal in Abuja has upheld the proscription of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) as a terrorist organization by the Federal Government.
In a unanimous decision delivered on Thursday, a three-member panel of the appellate court reaffirmed the ruling of the Federal High Court in Abuja, which had earlier declared IPOB a terrorist group. Justice Hamma Barka, who delivered the lead judgment, dismissed IPOB’s appeal challenging its proscription.
Background of the Proscription
The appeal, marked FHC/CA/A/214/2018, was filed by IPOB’s counsel, Ifeanyi Ejiofor, seeking to overturn the decision of the late Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Abdul Abdu-Kafarati. On September 15, 2017, Justice Abdu-Kafarati had outlawed IPOB’s activities in Nigeria following an ex parte motion filed by the then-Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami (SAN), on behalf of the Federal Government.
Justice Abdu-Kafarati’s ruling declared IPOB’s activities illegal, particularly in the Southeast and South-South regions of the country. He also restrained individuals and groups from participating in any IPOB activities and directed the AGF to ensure the proscription order was published in the official gazette and two national newspapers.
IPOB’s Appeal and Court’s Rulings
IPOB later filed a motion seeking to reverse its proscription and designation as a terrorist group. The group argued that the AGF had misrepresented facts in the affidavit submitted to the court, alleging that the proscription order effectively labeled over 30 million Igbos as terrorists.
However, on January 22, 2018, the Federal High Court dismissed IPOB’s motion, upholding its earlier decision that the proscription order was valid and necessary for national security. The court ruled that IPOB’s activities posed a threat and that the Federal Government had acted within legal bounds.
Legal Arguments and Court’s Verdict
In its appeal, IPOB raised five grounds of contention, arguing that Justice Abdu-Kafarati erred in law and caused a miscarriage of justice by ruling that the necessary approval from then-President Muhammadu Buhari was satisfied through an AGF-issued memo dated September 15, 2017.
The group also argued that the lower court failed to evaluate affidavit evidence that showed IPOB was not a violent organization. According to IPOB, its members were engaged in peaceful demonstrations, holding placards, singing, and blowing whistles to demand self-determination—actions that do not meet the definition of terrorism under Section 2 (1) (A), (B), and (C) of the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act, 2013.
Despite IPOB’s claims, the appellate court upheld the Federal High Court’s ruling, stating that the proscription was legally justified. The court rejected IPOB’s argument that it could not be sued in Nigeria since it was not a registered entity in the country. It also dismissed IPOB’s assertion that its registration in over 40 countries provided a legal basis to reverse the proscription order, emphasizing that Nigerian law takes precedence over foreign registrations when it comes to national security matters.
Comparison with Other Groups
IPOB also attempted to draw comparisons with other groups such as Fulani herdsmen, arguing that despite reports of violence attributed to them, they had not been designated as terrorists. The group alleged that political considerations played a role in the government’s decision. However, the court maintained that its judgment was based solely on the legal definitions of terrorism and the evidence presented.
Final Judgment
With the Court of Appeal’s decision, IPOB remains a proscribed organization in Nigeria. The ruling reaffirms the Federal Government’s stance that IPOB’s activities fall within the scope of terrorism under Nigerian law, reinforcing restrictions on its operations within the country.
The judgment marks another legal setback for IPOB as it continues its struggle for recognition and self-determination amid government opposition.
