The Court of Appeal in Abuja has reaffirmed the 2018 ruling of the Federal High Court, which designated the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) as a terrorist organization and banned its activities nationwide.
The judgment, delivered on Thursday, upheld the federal government’s decision, citing national security concerns and the potential threat IPOB’s activities pose to Nigeria’s stability.
A three-member panel of the appellate court ruled unanimously that the proscription of IPOB was lawful and in line with Nigeria’s counterterrorism measures. Justice Hamma Barka, who delivered the lead judgment, emphasized that all the arguments presented by IPOB in its appeal lacked merit and could not override the federal government’s constitutional powers to act in the interest of national security.
The Legal Basis for IPOB’s Proscription
The legal battle against IPOB began in 2017 when the federal government moved to classify the group as a terrorist organization. On September 15, 2017, the Federal High Court in Abuja, under the late Justice Abdul Abdu-Kafarati, issued an ex-parte order approving the government’s request to proscribe IPOB.
This ruling followed a motion filed by Abubakar Malami (SAN), the then Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice. The motion highlighted IPOB’s alleged violent activities, including attacks on security personnel and destruction of public property, as justification for its proscription.
READ ALSO: Insecurity:Bandits Kill DPO, 4 Other Policemen In Niger State
The court’s ruling declared IPOB’s activities illegal and imposed a ban on any individual or group from associating with or participating in the organization’s operations, particularly in the South-East and South-South regions of Nigeria. Additionally, the judge directed the Attorney-General’s Office to publish the proscription order in the official government gazette and two national newspapers to ensure public awareness.
IPOB’s Attempt to Challenge the Ban
In response to the proscription, IPOB, through its legal representatives led by Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Chukwuma-Machukwu Umeh, filed an appeal seeking to overturn the ruling. The group argued that the Attorney-General misrepresented facts in the affidavit submitted to the court.
IPOB claimed that the proscription effectively labeled millions of Igbos as terrorists, an assertion it described as a gross misinterpretation of its objectives. The group maintained that its push for Biafra’s self-determination was peaceful and rooted in constitutional rights.
The Court of Appeal’s Verdict
After reviewing the case, the Court of Appeal dismissed IPOB’s arguments, affirming the validity of its proscription. The appellate court ruled that the federal government acted within its legal rights to ban organizations deemed a threat to national security. It further stressed that the evidence presented justified the decision to classify IPOB as a terrorist group.
Justice Hamma Barka, in delivering the unanimous decision, stated that all the issues raised by IPOB in its appeal lacked legal merit. The panel upheld the previous rulings of the Federal High Court, reinforcing the government’s authority to take necessary actions to maintain law and order.
Implications of the Judgment
With the Court of Appeal’s decision, IPOB remains officially proscribed, and any association with the group continues to be illegal under Nigerian law. The ruling strengthens the government’s legal position in curbing separatist movements that challenge the country’s sovereignty.
Furthermore, the decision sets a precedent for future cases involving groups or movements advocating secession through controversial means. It also reinforces the government’s counterterrorism efforts, signaling that activities deemed a threat to national security will face strict legal consequences.
As the legal battle continues, IPOB’s next course of action remains uncertain. However, with the latest judicial setback, the group may face even greater challenges in its push for recognition and legitimacy.
