The Court of Appeal in Abuja has adjourned the hearing of the Indigenous People of Biafra’s (IPOB) appeal against its proscription as a terrorist organization by the Federal Government until October 31.
A three-member panel of the Court of Appeal okayed the hearing date after it directed the parties to file and exchange all the necessary legal processes in the case.
Nnamdi Kanu, the detained leader of the IPOB, had previously applied to join as an interested party in the appeal with the file number FHC/CA/A/214/2018.
Specifically, IPOB, through its lawyer, Mr. Ifeanyi Ejiofor, is praying the appellate court to set aside in its entirety the ruling/final decision of the late former Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Abdul Abdu-Kafarati, which on September 15, 2017, outlawed its activities in Nigeria.
According to Persecondnews, the then Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Abubakar Malami (SAN), filed an ex-parte motion on behalf of the Federation, which led to the high court’s proscription of IPOB.
Justice Kafafati specifically declared all activities of the group illegal, particularly in the Southeast and Southsouth regions of the country.
He further restrained “any person or group of persons from participating in any of the group’s activities.”
The judge 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 it said was surreptitiously obtained by the AGF.
IPOB 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 30 million 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.
He rejected Ejiofor’s claim that the FG could not legitimately sue the group because it was not a registered entity in Nigeria.
The court said the fact that IPOB claimed that it was registered in over 40 countries in the world aside from Nigeria did not exempt it from legal liabilities if it was found to have, by its activities, violated any law in Nigeria.
As part of its five reasons for appealing, IPOB said that Justice Abdu-Kafarati made a legal mistake and harmed the justice system when he said that President Muhammadu Buhari’s approval was not needed as required by Section 2 (1)(C) of the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act, 2013, citing a memo from the AGF on September 15, 2017.
It told the appellate court that the lower court judge failed to evaluate, consider, or mention in his rulings the affidavit evidence that was tendered to establish that IPOB was not a violent organization.
IPOB added: “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, fall 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.
“The learned trial judge justified the granting of the Exparte Order of 20th September 2017, vide finding of facts predicated on issues he formulated suo motu, ostensibly closing his eyes to facts, as well as documents that show that the Appellant is a group of persons holding common political belief largely made up of indigenous people of Igbo extraction and other neighboring regions merely exercising their constitutional rights to self-determination, within the bounds of relevant international instruments and conventions.
“Affidavit evidence placed before the Trial Court shows in clear terms that the Appellant does not possess any form of arms or weapons in the exercise of their constitutionally guaranteed rights, or have any history of violence or had engaged in any form of killings; the activities of the Appellant are essentially characterized by moving in groups with cardboards and placards in their hands, singing, blowing whistles and flutes, in agitation for self-determination; these compelling facts clearly supported by credible evidence were not evaluated by the Court below in its finding of facts.
“Activities of the Appellant, as demonstrated before the lower court, are in sharp contrast with characters of notorious groups that have even used violence, such as FULANI HERDSMEN (which has been declared the 4th most dangerous terrorist organization in the world), and none of these violent groups has earned the terrorist tag because the President most probably considered them as possessing or professing protected political beliefs.”
Author
Leave a comment