The embattled leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu, has vowed to resist the ruling of the Court of Appeal in Abuja, which affirmed the proscription of IPOB and its designation as a terrorist organisation.
Kanu stated that the court’s ruling would be challenged within the ambit of the law, as the judgment did not pass the “muster of the Nigerian Constitution and the statutes pertinent to it.”
On Thursday, the Abuja division of the Court of Appeal upheld an order by Justice Abdu Kafarati of the Federal High Court, Abuja, proscribing IPOB and designating it a terrorist organisation.
In its judgement, a three-member panel of the court unanimously agreed with the lawyer representing the Federal Government, Oyin Koleosho, that the state acted lawfully in proscribing IPOB.
The panel maintained that IPOB’s activities posed a threat to Nigeria’s continued existence and the security of its citizens.
Faulting the judgment, Kanu argued that the order of proscription by the Federal High Court was obtained through an ex parte application by the Federal Government, rather than through a hearing on notice by a judge-in-chambers, as prescribed by law.
He made this known during his routine meeting with his legal team, led by lead counsel Aloy Ejimakor, at the Department of State Services, DSS facility in Abuja.
A statement issued by Ejimakor after the meeting read: “Rising from our routine visitation to Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu today, he instructed the legal team to convey the following to members of the public: The ruling yesterday by the Court of Appeal affirming the proscription of IPOB as a terror group will live in infamy and shall be vigorously resisted within the parameters of the law—both municipal and international.
“Sooner rather than later, it shall be demonstrated that the judgment did not pass the muster of the Nigerian Constitution and the statutes pertinent to it.
“Members of the public should ponder this: One of the main issues we canvassed at the Court of Appeal was that the order of proscription by the Federal High Court was obtained through an ex parte application by the Federal Government, instead of through a hearing on notice by a judge-in-chambers, as prescribed by the pertinent law.
“We also argued that the proscription proceedings violated the hallowed doctrine of fair hearing enshrined in the Constitution, as IPOB was neither put on notice nor heard before the order of proscription was issued.
“In addition to these, we argued that the proscription directive issued to the Attorney-General was signed by the late Abba Kyari, and not by former President Buhari, as the relevant law required. The Court of Appeal acknowledged these irregularities but still went ahead to dismiss our appeal on the questionable premise that national security is an exception to the provisions of the Constitution,” he said.
The IPOB leader added: “One then wonders: wherein lies the national security risk posed by IPOB in 2017 that warranted the flagrant breach of the Constitution—one that, in its intent and effect, discriminatorily targeted the Igbo as a whole?
“To be clear, the Constitution sets out a process that must be strictly followed before any provision of the Constitution can be suspended for the sake of national security. But in this case, that process was not followed at all.
“For the avoidance of doubt, the Court of Appeal’s decision will hardly have any prejudicial effect on Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s main case, as the decision is not final. We are heading to the Supreme Court, which is—by law—the final arbiter. There are also numerous other legal avenues that can be pursued against any individual or entity that attempts to take undue advantage of the Court of Appeal’s judgment to inflict legal and constitutional harm on Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and the Igbo people.”
Kanu also warned against referring to him as a terrorist based on the Appeal Court ruling.
“For now, it is legally safer and wiser for everyone to resist the dangerous temptation of calling Mazi Nnamdi Kanu a terrorist until he is either convicted as one (which is highly unlikely) or until the Supreme Court finally decides the matter against him (which is even more improbable).
“In plain terms, the jury is still out on whether IPOB and Mazi Nnamdi Kanu are terrorists or not. Therefore, any individual or entity that seizes this adverse moment to spread the libellous claim that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu or IPOB is a terrorist will face prompt, forceful, and unrelenting legal action.”
He concluded: “Let it be clear: only those unfamiliar with the deep-seated and institutionalised disdain for the Igbo in Nigeria will be surprised by a court ruling as infamous as this—one that showed no regard for the Nigerian Constitution.
“Elevating the denial of fair hearing to a state where it receives judicial endorsement is absurd and perverse. And it shall not stand.”
About The Author
