Nnamdi Kanu: We’ll contest appeal court’s judgement affirming IPOB’s proscription

Nnamdi Kanu says the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) will contest the court of appeal judgment which affirmed its proscription.

In 2017, a federal high court in Abuja declared IPOB’s activities as “acts of terrorism”.

Abdul Kafarati, the presiding judge at the time, ruled that the group’s actions across the country — especially in the south-east and south-south — amounted to terrorism and illegality.

Following the ruling, former President Muhammadu Buhari signed a presidential proclamation proscribing the secessionist group.

On Thursday, a three-member panel of the appellate court unanimously held that the federal government acted lawfully in banning IPOB.

Delivering the lead judgment, Hamma Barka, the judge, dismissed IPOB’s appeal, describing it as “unmeritorious“.

Reacting to the judgment, Kanu, through his lead counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, described the appellate court’s decision as one that “will live in infamy.”

He said the judgment disregarded the Nigerian constitution, elevated the denial of fair hearing to an unacceptable level, and was both absurd and perverse.

“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 reads.

“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.”

Further faulting the judgment, the statement said one of the issues highlighted was that the trial court’s (federal high court) proscription order was obtained through an ex parte application by the federal government, rather than through a hearing on notice as required by law.

Kanu said the proscription proceedings violated the constitutional right to fair hearing, as IPOB was neither notified nor heard before the proscription order was issued.

The statement also noted that the proscription directive issued to the attorney-general of the federation,was signed by the Abba Kyari, former chief of staff to the president, and not by former President Buhari, as mandated by law.

He said although the court of appeal acknowledged these procedural lapses, it dismissed the appeal on the grounds that national security overrides constitutional provisions.