Proscription: Appeal Court Reserves Judgement On IPOB’s Appeal
The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) is challenging the Federal Government’s designation as a terrorist organization, and the Court of Appeal Abuja has reserved its decision.
A three-man panel of the court led by Justice Hamma Barka, adjourned the matter for judgment, after the Federal Government and IPOB, through their respective lawyers, adopted their final briefs of argument.
While a counsel from the Federal Ministry of Justice, Oyilade Koleosho, announced his appearance for the government, IPOB was represented by a team of lawyers led by a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Chukwuma-Machukwu Umeh.
Nnamdi Kanu, the IPOB leader who was detained, had previously requested to be listed as an active participant in the appeal.
The IPOB is praying the appellate court set aside in its entirety, the ruling/final decision of the late former Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Abdul Abdu-Kafarati, which on September 15, 2017, outlawed its activities in Nigeria.
READ ALSO: Court Rejects Suit Attempting to Remove Ebie As NDDC Chair.
On the basis of an ex-parte motion that the former AGF, Abubakar Malami, filed on behalf of the Federal Government, the high court forbade IPOB.
Justice Kafarati specifically declared as illegal, all activities of the group, particularly in the South-East and South-South regions of the country.
Further, he forbids “anyone or group of people from engaging in any of the group’s activities.”
The judge ordered the AGF to publish the IPOB prescribing order in both the official gazette and two national newspapers.
A motion IPOB filed to challenge the legality of the proscription order, which the court claimed was obtained secretly by the AGF, was overturned in a follow-up ruling on January 22, 2018.
The then AGF’s affidavit evidence, according to IPOB, contained allegations that the former AGF had misrepresented and suppressed the facts in the affidavit evidence before the court, and that the proscription order constituted a terrorist order for more than 30 million people of Igbo descent.
Justice Abdu-Kafarati stated that he was satisfied that IPOB posed a threat to national security while refuting the motion.
He refuted the claim that the group could not bring legal legal action against the FG because it wasn’t a registered company in Nigeria.
The court argued that IPOB’s claim that it was registered in more than 40 countries around the world, excluding , Nigeria, did not release it from legal responsibilities if it was found to have violated any law in Nigeria.
However, in its five grounds of appeal, IPOB contended that Justice Abdu-Kafarati erred in law and occasioned a miscarriage of justice, when he ruled that the mandatory statutory condition requiring President Muhammadu Buhari’s approval, under Section 2 (1) (C) of the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act, 2013, was satisfied, on the authority of a memo the AGF issued on September 15, 2017.
It told the appellate court that the lower court judge failed to evaluate, consider or mention in his rulings, the , affidavit evidence that was tendered to establish that IPOB was not a violent organisation.
According to Section 2 (i) (a) (b) & (c) of the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act, 2013, “proper conclusions of facts based on a meticulous evaluation of Affidavit evidence placed before the Court will determine whether the activities and characters of the Appellant as clearly distinguished from compelling exhibits placed before the Court, as contemplated by Section 2 (i) (a) (b) &, (c) of the Terror
” The Appellant’s activities as contested in its written submission before the Trial Court, strongly supported by credible Affidavit evidence falls short of acts of terrorism as contemplated under Section 2 (1) (A) (B) &, (C) of the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act, this submission was not considered by the Learned Trial Judge.
The learned trial judge found that the granting of the Exparte Order of September 2017 was justified by finding that the applicant is a group of people with a common political belief, primarily made up of indigenous people of Igbo extraction and other nearby regions, who are only engaged in self-determination under the guidance of relevant international instruments and conventions.
The Appellant’s activities are essentially defined by moving in groups with cardboards and placards in their hands, singing, blowing whistles, and flutes in an effort to regain their independence, these compelling facts supported by credible evidence were not evaluated by the Court below in its finding of facts. In this context, the Court below found that the Appellant did not possess any form of arms, or weapons in the exercise of their constitutionally guaranteed rights, or had engaged in any form of killings.
The Appellant’s actions, as demonstrated by the lower court, are in stark contrast to those of notorious individuals who have even used violence, such as FULANI HERDSMEN, which has been hailed as the world’s fourth most dangerous terrorist organization, and none of these violent individuals have been given the title of terrorist because the President most likely believed they had a political conviction in mind, according to IPOB.
While urging the appellate court to allow the appeal, IPOB’s lawyer, Umeh, SAN, argued that the organization was denied a , fair hearing.
Counsel to the Federal Government, Koleosho, who denied the allegation, prayed the appellate court to dismiss the appeal.
Source: Channels TV
Leave a Reply