A Federal High Court, Abuja, Thursday, refused to vacate the order it made on September 20, 2017, proscribing the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB).
Acting Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Abdul Kafarati in a judgment delivered Thursday dismissed IPOB’s application challenging the order.
The Judge held that the Federal Government was right in issuing the order based on the activities of IPOB prelude to the proscription.
The judge held that the memo written by the Attorney General of the Federation upon which the president gave the approval stands.
The Federal Government issued the proscription order after South East Governors banned activities of the pro-Biafra movement in South Eastern state in September 2017.
READ ALSO: SDGs: FG moves to reduce maternal, neonatal deaths
The Judge held that the issue of whether IPOB being foreign registered organisation can be prosecuted and punished in Nigeria, ” the answer is yes. IPOB is in Nigeria and members are Nigerians, I so hold
“It is my considered view that memo written by Attorney-General of the Federation upon which the President gave his approval, stands
“The order proscribing IPOB, which the applicant respondent challenged was properly, and applicant’s right of fair hearing has not been violated, ‘ he held.
He awarded N500,000 cost against IPOB.
Justice Kafarati had on November 14, 2017, reserved the judgment after counsel to the Federal Government, the Solicitor General of the Federation, Dayo Apata and counsel for IPOB, Ifeanyi Ejiofor, adopted their briefs of arguments for and against the proscription order issued on September 20, 2017.
Moving the application Ejiofor urged the court to vacate the order of proscription of IPOB as a terrorist organisation on the ground that the process followed in obtaining it was defective.
He said that the Terrorist Act is explicit and specific on who can give approval for an organisation to be proscribed. He said that President Muhammadu Buhari who the Act specifically empowered to approve the Proscription order did not give his approval as required by the law.
According to him, a letter written by the Attorney General of the Federation to the President did not amount to approval nor the letter signed by the Chief of Staff to the President, Abba Kyari conveying approval as the duty of the President under the act can not be delegated.
The order of the court did not comply with the processes of Section 40 of the terrorist Act which defined the office of the President and all actions that are to be taken by him under the act. He said in the instant case no approval was given by the President.
He also argued that IPOB has never engaged in any terrorist activities. That procession and rallies which the organisation is engaged in were not terrorist acts.
Ejiofor said that IPOB was registered in England, Indian, and several other countries and that her members have the right for self determination under the United Nations Charter.
The applicant averred that the grounds upon which the application was brought hinged on the fact that the Sept.20 exparte order made against it by the court was without jurisdiction.
Ejiofor posited that there was clear suppression and misrepresentation of facts in the AGF’s affidavit evidence, pursuance to which the order was granted.
“The order is unconstitutional, as it was made in clear violation of constitutionally guaranteed right of the Indigenous People of Biafra to self determination.
“It also violated Article 20(1) of the Africa Charter on Human & Peoples Rights, now domesticated into our law under (Ratification and Enforcement Act) (Cap 10) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990.
“It ran against the right to a fair hearing, right to freedom of expression and the press.
“It further violated the right to peaceful assembly and association clearly provided for under sections 36, 39 and 40 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as (Amended) 2011,’’ Ejiofor said.
According to him, a declaratory order cannot be made pursuant to an exparte application without hearing from the party against whom the order is made.
He submitted that the organisation to which majorly of Igbo extraction belong had no history of violence in exercising their right to self determination.
“The Indigenous People of Biafra does not carry arms and has no history of arm struggle in the exercise of its constitutionally guaranteed right to self determination.
“Prior and during the military invasion of the South Eastern states, IPOB members had never at any time resorted to arm struggle or engage in acts of violence capable of threatening national security.
The counsel denied claims by the Solicitor General, Apata that IPOB was linked with the importation of arms into the country by a Turkey national.
Responding, Apata vehemently opposed the application in the interest of justice, public peace, constitutional order, territorial integrity and national security.
He said that the application should be refused, reiterating that IPOB was engaged in terrorist activities .
The Solicitor General presented 11 exhibits depicting instances where the activities of IPOB have been classified by security agencies as terrorist acts, including the killing of a policeman.
He submitted that Nnamdi Kanu the leader of the proscribed IPOB has called Nigeria a zoo that must be scattered. He said that a less, but similar incident fueled the Rwandan genocide.
