Court of Appeal’s Ruling on IPOB Proscription Sparks Legal Challenge
By Obinwanem Media Africa
The legal team representing Mazi Nnamdi Kanu has strongly condemned the recent ruling by the Court of Appeal affirming the proscription of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) as a terrorist organization. Following a routine visitation with Kanu, his lead counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, Esq., issued a press statement outlining their legal position and next steps.
According to Ejimakor, the decision handed down on January 30, 2025, will be vigorously contested within the bounds of both municipal and international law. He described the ruling as one that “shall live in infamy,” emphasizing that it failed to meet constitutional and statutory standards.
Questioning the Legality of the Prescription
The statement highlighted several legal lapses in the original proscription order issued by the Federal High Court in 2017. The defence had argued before the appellate court that:
– The prescription was granted through an ex parte application by the Federal Government rather than a hearing on notice*, as required by law.
– IPOB was not given the opportunity to be heard before the order was made, violating the fundamental right to a fair hearing as enshrined in the Nigerian Constitution.
– The directive for proscription was signed by the late Abba Kyari instead of the sitting President at the time, Muhammadu Buhari, making the order legally defective.
Despite acknowledging these issues, the Court of Appeal upheld the proscription on the grounds that national security overrides constitutional provisions—a position the legal team finds deeply troubling.
The Question of National Security
Ejimakor challenged the claim that IPOB posed a national security threat in 2017, arguing that the manner in which the proscription was carried out amounted to targeted discrimination against the Igbo people. He further noted that the Nigerian Constitution provides clear guidelines for suspending constitutional rights in the interest of national security—guidelines that were not followed in this case.
Implications for Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s Case
While acknowledging the Court of Appeal’s ruling, Ejimakor assured the public that the decision had no direct impact on Kanu’s ongoing legal battle. He reiterated that:
1. The Supreme Court remains the final arbiter, and the legal team is prepared to escalate the case.
2. There are multiple legal avenues to challenge any attempt to use the ruling against Kanu or IPOB members.
3. Until a final judicial determination is made, any entity or individual labelling Mazi Nnamdi Kanu a terrorist will face swift legal action.
A Call for Justice
The statement concluded with a firm condemnation of what it described as institutional bias against the Igbo people in Nigeria, emphasizing that denial of fair hearing should never receive judicial endorsement. Ejimakor assured supporters that the battle for justice is far from over, stating, “It shall not stand.”
The legal team remains steadfast in its commitment to challenging the ruling and ensuring that constitutional principles are upheld at the highest level of the judiciary.
