On Thursday, the Abuja division of the Court of Appeal reserved judgment in an appeal filed by the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), disputing its designation as a terrorist organization by the Nigerian Federal Government. The case stems from a 2017 ruling by late Chief Judge Justice Abdul Abdu-Kafarati, which outlawed IPOB’s activities across Nigeria following an ex parte motion presented by the former Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami. The impact of this ruling has been profound, as it not only declared all IPOB activities illegal but also restricted any participation in such activities, citing the group’s actions as a national security threat. The ruling dismissed arguments regarding IPOB’s registration status in other countries, stating that its legal liabilities in Nigeria were unaffected by its international presence.
In the ongoing appeal, IPOB is seeking to have the earlier court ruling nullified completely. A key point of contention centers on the procedural integrity of the original ruling, particularly the assertion that proper legal requirements were not met for declaring IPOB a terrorist organization. IPOB argues that Justice Abdu-Kafarati erroneously concluded that the government’s approval was sufficient based on a memorandum produced by the Attorney General. They contend that the lack of consideration for substantial affidavit evidence demonstrating that they are a non-violent organization creates grounds for claiming a miscarriage of justice.
IPOB further claims that the designation effectively labels over 30 million Nigerians of Igbo descent as terrorists, raising concerns about the broader implications of the court’s ruling. The appeal is anchored on five principal grounds, which articulate that the trial judge failed to properly analyze the evidence supporting IPOB’s characterization as a non-violent political group advocating for self-determination. According to the appellant, a thorough examination of the facts would reveal that their activities, such as peaceful protests with placards and songs, do not meet the legal definition of terrorism outlined in the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act of 2013.
Throughout the proceedings, the appellant advocates that the trial judge neglected to evaluate crucial documentary evidence that depicted IPOB’s activities as distinctly non-violent in nature. Evidence provided asserts that IPOB, in its peaceful demonstrations, is characterized by singing and using props without any form of violence or weaponry. In contrast, they point out that armed groups, such as Fulani herdsmen, have engaged in violence yet have not been labeled as terrorist organizations, raising questions of fairness in the application of the terrorism designation.
During the court session, IPOB’s counsel, Chukwuma-Machukwu Umeh (SAN), requested that the appeal be allowed, arguing that the group had not received a fair hearing during the initial ruling. Conversely, Mr. Oyilade Koleosho, representing the Federal Ministry of Justice, countered these claims, urging the court to dismiss the appeal based on the assertion that due process had been observed in the original ruling. The panel of judges, led by Justice Hamma Barka, after hearing the arguments from both sides, decided to reserve judgment, signaling that the outcome would be communicated to the parties at a later date.
The case symbolizes the broader issues of self-determination, national security, and the intersection of political movements with state responses in Nigeria. As the Court of Appeal deliberates on this significant appeal, the implications of its decision will resonate far beyond IPOB, potentially impacting the dynamics of political activism and the classifications of various groups under terrorism laws in the country. The legal battle reflects the contentious relationship between the Nigerian state and ethnic groups seeking autonomy and recognition, as the outcome could set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future.
