AbujaThe Indigenous People of Biafra, or IPOB, filed an appeal to contest the Federal Government’s designation of the group as a terrorist organisation, and the Court of Appeal in Abuja on Thursday postponed its decision.

After FG and IPOB, via their respective solicitors, adopted their final briefs of argument, a three-member court panel chaired by Justice Hamma Barka delayed the case for judgement.

government, IPOB was represented by a group of solicitors under the direction of Mr. Chukwuma-Machukwu Umeh, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, SAN.

Nnamdi Kanu, the arrested IPOB leader, had previously requested to be added as an interested party to the appeal with the filing number FHC/CA/A/214/2018.

The IPOB is requesting that the appeal court completely overturn the order and final decision of Justice Abdul Abdu-Kafarati, the late former Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, which banned its operations in Nigeria on September 15, 2017.

On the basis of an ex-parte application filed by Mr. Abubakar Malami, SAN, the former AGF, on behalf of FG, the high court banned IPOB.

Justice Kafafati explicitly ruled that all of the group’s operations were unlawful, especially in the South-East and South-South parts of the nation.

Additionally, he prohibited “any individual or group of individuals from engaging in any of the group’s activities.”

The judge ordered the AGF to make sure the ruling banning IPOB was published in two national dailies and the official gazette.

In a subsequent decision on January 22, 2018, the court denied a request submitted by IPOB to contest the legality of the proscription order, claiming that the AGF had acquired it illegally.

In the affidavit evidence he submitted to the court, IPOB had claimed that the then-AGF had concealed and distorted facts, and that the proscription order amounted to labelling more than 30 million Nigerians of Igbo descent as terrorists.

Justice Abdu-Kafarati stated that he was convinced IPOB posed a threat to national security when rejecting the motion.

He dismissed a claim that the FG could not lawfully sue the organisation since it was not a Nigerian registered entity.

The court ruled that IPOB’s assertion that it was registered in more than 40 nations outside of Nigeria did not absolve it of legal responsibility in the event that it was discovered that its operations had broken any Nigerian laws.

However, IPOB argued in its five grounds of appeal that Justice Abdu-Kafarati had committed a legal error and caused a miscarriage of justice when he determined that, on the basis of an AGF memo dated September 15, 2017, the mandatory statutory condition requiring President Muhammadu Buhari’s approval under Section 2 (1) (C) of the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act, 2013 was satisfied.

The appeal court was informed that the lower court judge had neglected to assess, take into account, or include in his decisions the affidavit evidence that was presented to prove that IPOB was not a violent group.

According to Section 2(i)(a)(b) & (c) of the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act, 2013, “proper findings of facts based on a careful evaluation of Affidavit evidence placed before the Court below will determine whether the appellant’s actions and character, as clearly distinguished by compelling exhibits placed before the Court, meet the threshold definition of terrorism acts.”

“The Appellant’s actions, as disputed in its written submission to the Trial Court and substantiated by reliable affidavit evidence, do not amount to acts of terrorism as defined by Section 2 (1) (A) (B) & (C) of the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act; the Learnt Trial Judge did not take this submission into consideration.

The trial that was learnt Through the discovery of facts based on issues he formulated suo motu, ostensibly blind to facts, the judge justified the issuance of the Exparte Order of September 20, 2017. Documents also demonstrate that the appellant is a group of people with common political beliefs, primarily composed of indigenous people from Igbo extraction and other neighbouring regions, who are simply exercising their constitutional right to self-determination within the parameters of pertinent international instruments and conventions.

The affidavit evidence presented to the Trial Court unequivocally demonstrates that the appellant does not have any weapons or arms to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed rights, nor does it have a history of violence or homicides. The appellant’s actions are primarily defined by their group movements while holding cardboard and placards, singing, and playing instruments such as flutes and whistles in their quest for self-determination. The Court below failed to consider these compelling facts.

The appellant’s actions, as shown before the lower court, stand in stark contrast to the ideologies of violent, well-known groups like FULANI HERDSMEN, which has been ranked as the fourth most dangerous terrorist organisation in the world. None of these groups have been designated as terrorists because the President most likely believed that they held or professed protected political beliefs, IPOB continued.

IPOB’s attorney, Umeh, SAN, contended that the organisation was not given a fair hearing and urged the appellate court to grant the appeal.

The appellate court was asked to dismiss the appeal by FG’s attorney, Koleosho, who refuted the claim.

The Appeal Court panel stated that it will notify the parties of the decision date after hearing both sides.