Nnamdi Kanu vows to challenge court ruling affirming IPOB’s proscription

Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the outlawed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has vowed to challenge the Court of Appeal judgment affirming the proscription of IPOB as a terrorist organisation.

Join the Premium Times WhatsApp Community For Quick Access To News and Happenings Around You.

Open in WhatsApp

Aloy Ejimakor, in a statement on Friday night, said Mr Kanu stated this when he and other members of his legal team visited the IPOB leader on Friday at the facility of the State Security Service.

PREMIUM TIMES earlier reported that the Court of Appeal in Abuja, on Thursday, affirmed the proscription of IPOB in Nigeria.

IPOB is a group leading the agitation for an independent state of Biafra which it wants carved out from the South-east and some parts of the South-south Nigeria.

Stay Ahead with Premium Times

Add as a preferred source on Google

The Nigerian government, under the administration of President Muhammadu Buhari in 2017, proscribed the separatist group.

A Federal High Court in Abuja formalised the IPOB’s proscription and tagged the group a terrorist organisation.

Nnamdi Kanu faults ruling

Speaking through Mr Ejimakor, his special counsel, Mr Kanu argued that the judgement affirming IPOB’s proscription was faulty.

“The ruling yesterday (Thursday) by the Court of Appeal affirming the proscription of IPOB as a terror group will live in infamy and thus shall be resisted vigorously within the parameters of the law – municipal and international.

“Sooner than later, it shall be demonstrated that the judgment did not pass the muster of the Nigerian Constitution and the statutes pertinent to it,” he said.

Our grouse with the judgement

Mr Ejimakor said a major issue which the legal team argued at the appeal court was that the proscription order by the Federal High Court in 2017 was obtained through an ex parte application by the federal government, instead of through a hearing on notice by a judge-in-chambers.

He said they also argued that the proscription proceedings “offended the hallowed doctrine of fair hearing” provided in the Nigerian Constitution, given that IPOB was neither put on notice, nor heard before the proscription order was granted.

The special counsel further contended that the proscription directive issued to the attorney-general was signed by the then Chief of Staff, Abba Kyari, now late and not the then President Buhari, in line with law.

“The Court of Appeal acknowledged these laxities but it still went ahead to dismiss our appeal on the quaint premise that national security is an exception to the provisions of the Constitution.

“One then wonders when herein lies the national security risk posed by the IPOB in 2017 that warranted the flagrant breach of the Constitution that, in its intents and effects, discriminatorily targeted the Igbo as a whole,” he said.

Mr Ejimakor stressed that the Constitution laid down the process to be “strictly followed” before any provision before any provision of the Constitution could be suspended for the sake of national security.

“But in this case, this process was not followed at all,” he stated.

‘Don’t call Nnamdi Kanu a terrorist yet’

Aside from IPOB’s proscription, Mr Kanu is being prosecuted for alleged terrorism at the Federal High Court in Abuja.

Mr Ejimakor argued in the statement that the appeal court ruling “will hardly have any prejudicial effects” on Mr Kanu’s trial at the Federal High Court.

This, he explained, was because the appeal court ruling was not final and the IPOB leader had resolved to challenge the judgement at the Supreme Court, which is the final arbiter.

READ ALSO: Police commission approves retirement of IGP Egbetokun’s age mates

The special counsel threatened legal action against any person or entity who would take “undue advantage” of the appeal court ruling to cause legal injury on Mr Kanu and Igbos.

“So, for the time being, it is legally safer and wiser for all and sundry to resist the dangerous temptation of calling Mazi Nnamdi Kanu a terrorist until he is either convicted as one which is a tall order or until the Supreme Court finally decides it against him which is highly unlikely.

“In plain terms, the jury is still out on the issue of whether the IPOB and Mazi Nnamdi Kanu are terrorists or not,” he said.

“Thus, anybody or entity that seizes the adverse moment to purvey the libel that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu or IPOB is a terrorist will be countervailed by epic legal actions that will be prompt, muscular and scorched-earth.”