On Thursday, a three-member panel led by Justice Hamma Barka adjourned the case after both the government and IPOB presented their final arguments. The Federal Ministry of Justice was represented by Mr. Oyilade Koleosho, while IPOB was represented by a team led by Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Mr. Chukwuma-Machukwu Umeh.
Nnamdi Kanu, the detained leader of IPOB, had previously sought to join the appeal, marked as FHC/CA/A/214/2018, as an interested party.
IPOB is asking the appellate court to overturn the ruling made by the late former Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Abdul Abdu-Kafarati, on September 15, 2017, which banned its activities in Nigeria. This proscription was based on an ex-parte motion filed by the former Attorney General of the Federation, Mr. Abubakar Malami.
Read also: VeryDarkMan apologises to police over use of uniform in video
Justice Kafarati declared all activities of IPOB illegal, particularly in the South-East and South-South regions, and instructed the AGF to publish the order in the official gazette and two national newspapers.
Following this ruling, a motion filed by IPOB to contest the legality of the proscription was dismissed by the court on January 22, 2018. IPOB alleged that the AGF had suppressed and misrepresented facts in his affidavit, asserting that the order effectively labeled over 30 million Nigerians of Igbo descent as terrorists.
In dismissing IPOB’s motion, Justice Abdu-Kafarati stated he was convinced that IPOB posed a threat to national security and rejected the argument that the group, being unregistered in Nigeria, could not be sued by the government. The court noted that IPOB’s registration in other countries did not exempt it from legal responsibilities in Nigeria.
In its appeal, IPOB claims that Justice Abdu-Kafarati made legal errors that resulted in a miscarriage of justice, particularly regarding the requirement for President Muhammadu Buhari’s approval under Section 2 (1) (C) of the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act, 2013. IPOB argues that the lower court failed to properly evaluate evidence showing it is not a violent organization.
“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… meet the threshold definition of terrorism acts,” IPOB contended.
The group maintains that its activities are primarily peaceful and focused on self-determination, contrasting them with more violent groups that have not been labeled as terrorists.
Umeh, representing IPOB, emphasized that the organization was denied a fair hearing, while the government’s attorney, Koleosho, denied this claim and urged the court to dismiss the appeal.
After hearing arguments from both sides, the Appeal Court panel announced it would inform the parties of the judgment date in due course.
