The Indigenous People of Biafra has strongly denounced the recent Court of Appeal verdict that upheld its proscription, describing the decision as a grave miscarriage of justice and a violation of Nigeria’s constitutional principles.
In a statement released by its Media and Publicity Secretary, Comrade Emma Powerful, IPOB condemned the initial proscription order issued by the late Justice Abdul Kafarati, labeling it both unlawful and unconstitutional.
The group argued that ex-parte court orders, by legal definition, are provisional measures that should not extend beyond 14 days.
However, the proscription imposed on IPOB has remained in effect for nearly eight years, which they view as a clear legal violation.
Highlighting multiple procedural irregularities in the proscription process, IPOB pointed out the following:
Abuse of Ex-Parte Orders: The group asserted that it is a fundamental legal principle that ex-parte orders in civil matters cannot be used to impose criminal liability on individuals or organizations. Yet, this was done in IPOB’s case.
No Justification Through a State of Emergency: IPOB emphasized that at the time of its proscription, no state of emergency had been declared in the South-East or South-South regions. Additionally, there was no public disorder that could have warranted such a move.
Lack of Proper Authorization: According to IPOB, Nigerian law requires the President’s signature to validate any proscription order. However, neither former President Muhammadu Buhari nor then-Vice President Yemi Osinbajo signed the directive. Instead, it was reportedly signed by the late Abba Kyari, Buhari’s Chief of Staff, who, according to IPOB, lacked the legal authority to do so.
The group accused certain judges in Abuja of acting under external influence, suggesting that individuals who oppose IPOB had manipulated the legal process to deliver politically motivated rulings.
They also criticized what they called a “dubious reliance” on previous legal precedents, such as the denial of bail to Asari Dokubo, to justify the suppression of IPOB and the mischaracterization of its activities as terrorism.
Reaffirming its stance on peaceful and lawful advocacy, IPOB insisted that no terrorist acts had been linked to the group before its proscription.
Instead, they pointed to military actions like Operation Python Dance as examples of unwarranted aggression against their members.
Vowing to challenge the Court of Appeal’s ruling, IPOB warned that it would take legal action against anyone who refers to the organization as proscribed without concrete evidence of terrorist activity.
“We will litigate to the fullest extent of the law against any person or persons that dare refer to IPOB as a proscribed or outlawed organization without proof of any attributable commission of a terrorist act,” the statement declared.
