ABUJA – The Indegeniuos People of
Biafra, IPOB, on Thursday, went before the Court of Appeal in Abuja to
challenge the order that proscribed and designated it as a terrorist
organisation.
IPOB, through its lawyer, Mr.
Ifeanyi Ejiofor, is praying the appellate court to set aside in its entirety,
the ruling/final decision of the Acting Chief Judge of the Federal High Court,
Justice Abdul Abdu-Kafarati, which on September 15, 2017, outlawed its
activities in Nigeria.
It will be recalled that the high
court proscribed IPOB on the strength of an ex-parte motion the Attorney
General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Abubakar Malami, SAN,
filed on behalf of the federal government. Justice Kafafati specifically
declared as illegal, all activities of the group, particularly in the
South-east and South-South regions of the country. He further restrained “any
person or group of persons from participating in any of the group’s
activities”.
The Judge directed the AGF to ensure that he published the order
proscribing IPOB in the official gazette, as well as in two national dailies.
In a follow-up ruling on January 22, 2018, the court dismissed a motion IPOB
filed to challenge the legal validity of the proscription order which it said
was surreptitiously obtained by the AGF.
IPOB had alleged that the AGF
suppressed and misrepresented facts in the affidavit evidence he tendered
before the court, adding that the proscription order was tantamount to
declaring over 30million Nigerians of Igbo extraction as terrorists.
While
dismissing the motion, Justice Abdu-Kafarati said he was satisfied that IPOB
constituted a threat to national security. He rejected Ejiofor’s argument that
the group, not being a registered entity in Nigeria, could not be validly sued
by the FG. The court said the fact that IPOB claimed that it was registered in
over 40 countries in the world aside Nigeria, did not exculpate it from legal
liabilities if it was found to have by its activities, violated any law in
Nigeria. Meantime, 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, affidavit evidence that
was tendered to establish that IPOB was not a violent organisation. “Proper
findings of facts built on a meticulous evaluation of Affidavit evidence placed
before the Court below, will resolve whether the activities and characters of
the Appellant as clearly distinguished vide compelling exhibits placed before
the Court, meet the threshold definition of terrorism acts, as contemplated
under Section 2 (i) (a) (b) & (c) of the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment)
Act, 2013.
“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 justified the
granting of the Exparte Order of 20th September 2017, vide finding of facts
predicated on issues he formulated suo motu, ostensibly closing his eyes to
facts, as well as documents that show that the Appellant is a group of persons
holding common political belief largely made up of indigenous people of Igbo
extraction and other neighboring regions merely exercising their constitutional
rights to self-determination, within the bounds of relevant international
instruments and conventions.
“Affidavit evidence placed before the Trial Court
shows in clear terms that the Appellant does not possess any form of arms, or
weapons in the exercise of their constitutionally guaranteed rights; or have
any history of violence or had engaged in any form of killings; the activities
of the Appellant are essentially characterized by moving in groups with
cardboards and placards in their hands, singing, blowing whistles and flutes,
in agitation for self-determination; these compelling facts clearly supported
by credible evidence were not evaluated by the Court below in its finding of
facts.
“Activities of the Appellant as demonstrated before the lower court, is
in sharp contrast with characters of notorious groups that have even used
violence such as FULANI HERDSMEN (which has been declared the 4th most
dangerous terrorist organization in the world), and none of these violent group
has earned terrorist tag, because the President most probably considered them
as possessing or professing protected political beliefs”, IPOB added.
Meanwhile, no date has been fixed for hearing of the appeal.
No comments:
Post a Comment