Nnamdi Kanu’s Lawyer, Ejimakor vows to challenge Appeal Court ruling affirming IPOB proscription

 

Maureen Aguta

 

The Special Counsel for the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Barrister Aloy Ejimakor  has vowed to challenge the ruling of the Appeal Court which affirmed the proscription of IPOB as a terror group by the Nigerian government.

Ejimakor made the vow in a statement issued 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.

Recall that 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.

However, the Appeal Court in a unanimous judgment delivered by Justice Hamma Barka, a 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.

Ejimakor stated, “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.”

He added, “In addition to these, we argued that the proscription Directive issued to the Attorney-General was signed by late Abba Kyari, and not by former President 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 Mazi 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.”