The Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, has filed an appeal at the Supreme Court, contesting the Appeal Court’s ruling that affirmed its proscription and designation as a terrorist organisation.
Filing the suit, Aloy Ejimakor, lead counsel to Nnamdi Kanu, leader of IPOB, declared that the group’s proscription would not stand, just as he also likened IPOB’s proscription to declaring the 70 million Igbos in Nigeria as terrorists.
In the suit filed against the Attorney General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi, Ejimakor argued that the Appeal Court erred in law when it held that what it termed a “threat to national security” or emergency was greater than (or an exception to) the appellant’s right to a fair hearing, contrary to Sections 36(2) and 45(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
Ejimakor explained that the suit was against the entire decision delivered by the lower court on 30 January 2025, which affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
“The proscription of IPOB will not stand because it is tantamount to proscribing NDIGBO and their cousins in other parts of Nigeria. A nation of 70 million cannot be terrorists. We’ve headed to the Supreme Court.
“TAKE NOTICE that the appellant, being dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, Coram: Hama Akawu Barka, O. E. Abang, O. O. Oyewunmi, JJCA, delivered on 30 January 2025, doth hereby appeal to the Supreme Court of Nigeria upon the grounds set out in paragraph 3 below and will, at the hearing of the appeal, seek reliefs as set out in paragraph 4 hereof from the Supreme Court.
“AND the appellant further states that the names and addresses of persons directly affected by this appeal are as stated in paragraph 5 below, ” Ejimakor said.
Pointing out the Appeal Court’s error, Ejimakor said: “The court below misapplied the law (in this case, the Constitution) to the extent that it held that the appellant had no right to a fair hearing (or to be put on notice) in proceedings that determined a question arising in the administration of the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act (TPAA). This is a legal question concerning whether the proceedings by which the appellant was proscribed and declared a terrorist entity were conducted in accordance with the pertinent provisions of the Constitution, especially as the ex parte order issued from the said proceedings transformed into a final and conclusive decision when the respondent gazetted it and relied on it to commence the arrests, detentions, prosecutions, and even extrajudicial killings of alleged members of the appellant.
“As a corollary to the foregoing paragraph, the court below should have sustained the appellant’s appeal if it had taken cognisance of Section 36(2) of the Constitution, which provides that:
‘Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this section, a law shall not be invalidated by reason only that it confers on any government or authority power to determine questions arising in the administration of a law that affects or may affect the civil rights and obligations of any person if such law—
(a) provides for an opportunity for the persons whose rights and obligations may be affected to make representations to the administering authority before that authority makes the decision affecting that person; and
(b) contains no provision making the determination of the administering authority final and conclusive.’ [Emphasis is ours].’
“Section 45(3) of the Constitution provides thus: ‘In this section, a “period of emergency” means any period during which there is in force a Proclamation of a state of emergency declared by the President in exercise of the powers conferred on him under section 305 of this Constitution.’
“Thus, the court below lacked the jurisdiction to proclaim the threat to national security or the emergency upon which it heavily relied to justify the denial of the right to a fair hearing to the appellant.”
The appeal also sought the following from the apex court:
“An order allowing the appeal and reversing the judgment of the Honourable Court of Appeal.
“Any further orders this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances.”
