THE LEADER of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, is planning to challenge the recent Court of Appeal ruling affirming the proscription of IPOB as a terrorist organisation at the Supreme Court.
On Thursday, The Explainer reported that the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal upheld the 2017 decision of the Federal High Court, which designated IPOB as a terrorist group. The ruling has sparked strong reactions, with Kanu and his legal team condemning the verdict as unconstitutional and vowing to pursue all legal avenues to overturn it.
Reacting to the development, Kanu, through his lead counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, issued a statement on Friday, describing the judgment as one that “will live in infamy.”
The Explainer noted that Kanu criticised the decision as an affront to the Nigerian Constitution and a violation of the fundamental right to a fair hearing. He argued that the ruling “elevated the denial of fair hearing to an unacceptable level” and was both “absurd and perverse.”
According to the statement, IPOB intends to resist the ruling, stressing that it “shall not stand.” Kanu’s legal team emphasised that the Court of Appeal’s decision was not final and that they were prepared to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court, which remains the highest judicial authority in Nigeria.
“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 read.
ALSO READ: Court Acquits 50 Alleged IPOB Members of Terrorism Charges
The Explainer learned that Kanu’s legal team has also issued a warning against referring to him or IPOB as terrorists, cautioning that any such claims could result in legal consequences.
“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),” the statement warned.
READ MORE: PSC Sweeps Out Senior Officers Over 60 Years Amid IG Tenure Controversy
Kanu’s legal representatives argue that the case remains unresolved, stating: “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 Explainer gathered that one of the primary legal issues raised in the Court of Appeal proceedings was how the Federal High Court’s proscription order was obtained.
According to IPOB’s legal team, the proscription was secured through an ex parte application filed by the Federal Government, rather than a hearing on notice as required by law. This, they argue, constituted a violation of IPOB’s constitutional right to a fair hearing, as the group was neither notified nor allowed to defend itself before the court issued its ruling.
Furthermore, the Explainer noted that IPOB raised questions about the legal authority behind the proscription directive. The legal team pointed out that the directive was signed by the late Abba Kyari, then Chief of Staff to President Muhammadu Buhari, rather than Buhari himself, as mandated by law.
While the Court of Appeal acknowledged these procedural lapses, it ultimately dismissed IPOB’s appeal because national security concerns take precedence over constitutional provisions.
Disagreeing with this stance, Kanu’s legal team maintained that the ruling was flawed and must be challenged.
“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,” the statement said.
The Explainer gathered that IPOB has also questioned the basis of the Federal Government’s claim that the group posed a national security threat in 2017, arguing that the government’s actions were discriminatory.
According to Kanu’s legal representatives, the ruling targets the Igbo people while failing to follow due process as prescribed by the Nigerian Constitution. They contend that if national security concerns require the temporary suspension of constitutional rights, a legal framework must be followed, which was not done in this case.
The Explainer earlier reported that the court of Appeal in Abuja reaffirmed the proscription of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) as a terrorist organisation, solidifying a 2017 ruling by the Federal High Court that outlawed the group’s activities.
A three-member panel of the appellate court, led by Justice Hamma Barka, unanimously upheld the decision, dismissing IPOB’s appeal as lacking merit. The court ruled that the Federal Government acted lawfully in proscribing the group, citing threats to national security and stability.
