3 hours ago
1 ARTICLE AD
The leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, has announced that the group will be approaching the Supreme Court to appeal the recently delivered judgment affirming its proscription.
Recall that the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, on Thursday, upheld the Federal High Court judgment that proscribed IPOB and declared it a terrorist organisation.
Reacting to the judgment, Kanu, through his lead counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, issued a statement on Friday describing the appellate court’s decision as one that “will live in infamy.”
He stated that the judgment disregarded the Nigerian Constitution, elevated the denial of fair hearing to an unacceptable level, and was both absurd and perverse.
Stressing that the decision “shall not stand”.
The statement further emphasized that the ruling would be resisted as it did not meet the requirements of the Nigerian Constitution and relevant statutes.“
The statement read “During our routine visitation with Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu today, he instructed the legal team to convey the following to members of the public:
“For the avoidance of doubt, the Court of Appeal decision will hardly have any prejudicial effects on Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s main case, because the decision is not final, and we are heading to the Supreme Court, which is – by law – the final arbiter.”
The statement also warned against labeling Kanu or IPOB as terrorists, noting that: “There are other myriad and varied legal options that can be triggered against anybody or entity attempting to take undue advantage of the Court of Appeal judgment to inflict legal and constitutional injury on Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and the Igbo people.
“For the time being, it is legally safer and wiser for all and sundry to resist the dangerous temptation of calling Mazi Nnamdi Kanu a terrorist until he is either convicted as one (which is a tall order) or until the Supreme Court finally decides against him (which is highly unlikely).
“In plain terms, the jury is still out on whether IPOB and Mazi Nnamdi Kanu are terrorists or not. Thus, any individual or entity that seizes this adverse moment to purvey the libel that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu/IPOB is a terrorist will face epic legal actions that will be prompt, muscular, and scorched-earth in nature.”
The statement highlighted one of the main issues raised at the Court of Appeal stating that the Federal High Court’s proscription order was obtained through an ex parte application by the Federal Government, rather than through a hearing on notice as required by law.
Adding that they argued that the proscription proceedings violated the constitutional right to fair hearing, as IPOB was neither notified nor heard before the proscription order was issued.
Further pointing out that the proscription directive issued to the Attorney-General was signed by the late Abba Kyari and not by former President Muhammadu Buhari, as mandated by law.
The statement added that although the Court of Appeal acknowledged these procedural lapses, it dismissed the appeal on the grounds that national security overrides constitutional provisions.
Disagreeing with the appellate court’s decision, the statement noted that “The ruling yesterday by the Court of Appeal affirming the proscription of IPOB as a terror group will live in infamy and shall be resisted vigorously within the parameters of the law – both municipal and international.”
Questioning the national security risk allegedly posed by IPOB in 2017 that justified what was termed a flagrant breach of the Constitution, IPOB argued that the judgment, in its intent and effect, discriminatorily targeted the Igbo people.
According to the statement, the Constitution prescribes a process to be strictly followed before any provision of the Constitution can be suspended for the sake of national security. Maintaining that this process was not followed in this case.
