The leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has announced plans to challenge the recent Court of Appeal judgment that upheld the Federal High Court’s decision to proscribe the group and label it a terrorist organization. Kanu, through his lead counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, made the announcement on Friday, describing the appellate court’s decision as one that “will live in infamy.”
The Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, ruled on Thursday to affirm the Federal High Court’s proscription order, declaring IPOB a terrorist group. In response, Kanu issued a statement vehemently opposing the judgment, which he claimed violated the Nigerian Constitution and denied IPOB a fair hearing. He characterized the decision as both “absurd” and “perverse,” asserting that it would be vigorously resisted.
In the statement, Kanu emphasized that the decision was not final and confirmed that his legal team would take the case to the Supreme Court, which he referred to as “the final arbiter” by law. He reassured supporters that the ruling would not impact his ongoing legal battle, noting that the Court of Appeal’s judgment would not prejudicially affect his main case.
Kanu’s statement also warned against labeling him or IPOB as terrorists, highlighting that there are various legal avenues available to challenge anyone who attempts to exploit the judgment for malicious purposes. He further stressed that it was legally unwise to refer to him as a terrorist until a conviction is reached or the Supreme Court issues its final verdict.
One of the main issues raised by Kanu’s legal team was the process by which the proscription order was obtained. The statement pointed out that the Federal High Court’s order was issued via an ex parte application by the Federal Government, which Kanu’s team argues violated IPOB’s constitutional right to a fair hearing. Additionally, they noted that the proscription order was signed by the late Abba Kyari and not by former President Muhammadu Buhari, as required by law.
Although the Court of Appeal acknowledged these procedural errors, it dismissed the appeal, stating that national security concerns justified overriding constitutional protections. However, Kanu’s legal team disagreed with this stance, arguing that the ruling unfairly targeted the Igbo people and that the necessary constitutional procedures had not been followed before suspending provisions for national security.
Kanu’s statement concluded by reaffirming that IPOB would continue to resist the proscription, both through national and international legal channels. The group remains committed to challenging the judgment, arguing that the legal processes were not followed and that the actions taken against them were constitutionally flawed.
