IGBOZURUOKE MEDIA

The Thursday ruling of the Court of Appeal in Abuja upholding the proscription of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), is not going down well with the detained leader of the pro-Biafra mass movement, Nnamdi Kanu.
The Abuja court upheld the proscription of IPOB by the Buhari administration as a terrorist group. But, the Special Counsel to Kanu has vowed to challenge the ruling of the appeal court.
This is coming as a ranking Senator from Abia State, Enyinnaya Abaribe, is hitting hard on the uneven application of laws across Nigeria, saying the Tinubu administration is exhibiting a significant regional bias in handling security matters.
Abaribe’s hard knock is coming on the heels of growing concerns about the fairness and impartiality of the country’s justice system, which he believes has led to widespread frustration and disillusionment among Nigerians.
Abaribe is pointing out the embarrassing double standards in the treatment of armed groups in different regions of the country, noting that while armed groups in Northern Nigeria are often labeled as “bandits”, Abuja has been engaging in negotiations with these groups, offering them amnesty and other concessions.
In stark contrast, he argues that unarmed freedom fighters in the South, who peacefully advocate for the rights and autonomy of their people, are labeled “terrorists” and subjected to arrest, imprisonment, or even extrajudicial killings.
The obviously aggrieved federal legislator is questioning the logic behind criminalising peaceful dissent in the South while negotiating with violent groups in the North, suggesting that this approach undermines the credibility of the government’s stance on security.
Abaribe also criticised the actions of law enforcement agencies across both regions, highlighting the differences in their conduct, pointing out that police officers in the North rarely arrest or extort motorists, in contrast to the situation in the South, where citizens frequently face harassment and extortion by law enforcement officers.
He notes that the Hisbah police, a religious police force in the North, has the authority to arrest Nigerian police officers for consuming alcohol, despite alcohol being widely available and consumed in many parts of the country, pointing out the disparity in the South, where vigilantes can be arrested and labeled criminals for consuming alcohol, further exemplifying the selective application of laws.
Abaribe is equally lamenting the lack of accountability for the violence faced by southerners in the North, particularly when northern youths are involved in the killing of southerners. He criticised the fact that perpetrators of such violence are rarely held accountable, while southern youths who engage in similar acts of violence are swiftly arrested and prosecuted.
Abaribe questioned why acts of self-defense are criminalised in the South, while violent actions in the North are often overlooked or tolerated, warning that these inconsistencies have eroded the trust Nigerians have in their country’s unity.
While calling for immediate reforms to ensure that laws are applied equally to all citizens, regardless of their region, the senator’s outburst underscores the growing dissatisfaction among many Nigerians who feel marginalised by a justice system that appears to favour certain groups over others.
He is therefore urging the Tinubu administration to abandon its selective justice system and adopt a more fair and equitable approach to law enforcement, stressing that a nation where laws apply differently to different people cannot thrive in unity.
Ejimakor, however, made the vow in a statement on Friday while reacting to the ruling where the appellate court on Thursday affirmed a 2017 Federal High Court judgment that outlawed IPOB’s activities in Nigeria.
The initial proscription of the group was issued by the late former Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Abdu-Kafarati, following an ex parte motion filed by the former Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami (SAN).
But dissatisfied with the ruling, IPOB appealed the decision in the case marked CA/A/214/2018, asking the appellate court to nullify its proscription as a terrorist organisation.
Against the run of play, the appeal court in a unanimous judgment delivered by Justice Hamma Barka, the three-member panel of the court dismissed IPOB’s appeal, ruling that the Nigerian government acted lawfully in its proscription, and rejected IPOB’s argument that, as an unregistered entity in Nigeria, it could not be legally prosecuted.
According to the appellate court, IPOB’s activities posed a threat to Nigeria’s national security and the safety of its citizens. But in the statement after the routine visitation of Kanu’s legal team to the detained IPOB leader at the Department of the State Services (DSS) custody on Friday, Ejimakor stated that Kanu said the appeal court ruling will live in infamy and thus shall be resisted vigorously within the parameters of the law – municipal and international.
“The ruling yesterday by the Court of Appeal affirming the proscription of IPOB as a terror group will live in infamy and thus shall be resisted vigorously within the parameters of the law – municipal and international.
Sooner than later, it shall be demonstrated that the judgment did not pass the muster of the Nigerian Constitution and the statutes pertinent to it.
“Members of the public should ponder these: One of the main issues we canvassed at the Court of Appeal was that the Order of proscription by the Federal High Court was obtained through an ex parte application by the Federal Government, instead of through a hearing on notice by a Judge-in-Chambers, as the pertinent law prescribed.
“We also argued that the proscription proceedings offended the hallowed doctrine of fair hearing enshrined in the Constitution, because IPOB was neither put on notice, nor heard before the Order of proscription ensued”, Ejimakor said.
Adding, he said, “In addition to these, we argued that the proscription directive issued to the attorney-general was signed by the late Abba Kyari, and not by former President Muhammadu Buhari, as the relevant law required. The Court of Appeal acknowledged these laxities but it still went ahead to dismiss our appeal on the quaint premise that national security is an exception to the provisions of the Constitution.
“One then wonders: Wherein lies the national security risk posed by the IPOB in 2017 that warranted the flagrant breach of the Constitution that, in its intents and effects, discriminatorily targeted the Igbo as a whole. To be sure, the Constitution laid down a process to be strictly followed before any provision of the Constitution is suspended for the sake of national security. But in this case, this process was not followed at all.
“For the avoidance of doubt, the Court of Appeal decision will hardly have any prejudicial effects on 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 appellate court however, ruled that there was no ground to overturn the proscription order, adding that the federal government acted within the extant law in banning IPOB due to its activities, which were considered a threat to national security and unity.
The court immediately struck out the group’s appeal for lacking merit. The original proscription was done on September 15, 2017, by the late former Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Abdul Abdu-KafaratiThis followed an ex-parte motion lodged by Malami, SAN, on behalf of the Buhari administration Justice Kafarati had declared IPOB’s activities illegal, particularly in the South-East and the South-South regions, and barred individuals or groups from participating in its operations.
While he also directed the Attorney General to publish the proscription order in the official gazette and two national newspapers, in January 2018, the court dismissed IPOB’s appeal against the proscription order, prompting the group to take the matter to the Court of Appeal.
In its appeal, IPOB, represented by a legal team led by Chukwuma-Machukwu Umeh, SAN, argued that the proscription was obtained through misrepresentation of facts and amounted to labeling over 30 million Igbo as terrorists.
The appellate court rejected the arguments and upheld the proscription. The IPOB chief, Kanu, has stated that the court’s ruling will be challenged within the ambit of the law, as the judgment did not pass the “muster of the Nigerian Constitution and the statutes pertinent to it.”
Faulting the judgment, Kanu argued that the order of proscription by the Federal High Court was obtained through an ex parte application by the Federal Government, rather than through a hearing on notice by a judge-in-chambers, as prescribed by law.
He made this known during his routine meeting with his legal team, led by lead counsel Ejimakor, at the secret police facility in Abuja.
Kanu is wondering where lies the national security risk posed by IPOB in 2017 that warranted the flagrant breach of the constitution—one that, in its intent and effect, discriminatorily targeted the Igbo as a whole?
“To be clear, the constitution sets out a process that must be strictly followed before any provision of the Constitution can be suspended for the sake of national security. But in this case, that process was not followed at all
“For the avoidance of doubt, the Court of Appeal’s decision will hardly have any prejudicial effect on Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s main case, as the decision is not final. We are heading to the Supreme Court, which is—by law—the final arbiter. There are also numerous other legal avenues that can be pursued against any individual or entity that attempts to take undue advantage of the Court of Appeal’s judgment to inflict legal and constitutional harm on Nnamdi Kanu and the Igbo people.”
Kanu also warned against referring to him as a terrorist based on the Appeal Court ruling. It is legally safer and wiser for everyone to resist the dangerous temptation of calling Nnamdi Kanu a terrorist until he is either convicted as one (which is highly unlikely) or until the Supreme Court finally decides the matter against him (which is even more improbable).
“In plain terms, the jury is still out on whether IPOB and Mazi Nnamdi Kanu are terrorists or not. Therefore, any individual or entity that seizes this adverse moment to spread the libellous claim that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu or IPOB is a terrorist will face prompt, forceful, and unrelenting legal action.
“Let it be clear: only those unfamiliar with the deep-seated and institutionalised disdain for the Igbo in Nigeria will be surprised by a court ruling as infamous as this—one that showed no regard for the Nigerian Constitution. Elevating the denial of fair hearing to a state where it receives judicial endorsement is absurd and perverse. And it shall not stand.”

The Southernexaminer