The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has taken its legal battle against its proscription to the Supreme Court, challenging the Court of Appeal’s January 30 judgment that upheld the group’s designation as a terrorist organization by the Federal Government.
In a notice of appeal filed on February 7, IPOB, through its lawyer Aloy Ejimakor, argued that its proscription violated constitutional provisions, particularly the right to fair hearing under Section 36 of the Constitution. The Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) is listed as the sole respondent in the case.
The group contended that the Court of Appeal erred in law by upholding an ex parte order without allowing IPOB the opportunity to present its defense. It also accused the court of prioritizing national security concerns over fundamental human rights and failing to require the government to meet the standard of proof necessary for allegations of terrorism.
Additionally, IPOB argued that its classification as a terrorist group subjected its predominantly Igbo members to discrimination, violating Section 42 of the Constitution. The group also cited the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, asserting that its call for Biafra’s self-determination aligns with international human rights law.
The Court of Appeal had ruled that the Federal Government lawfully proscribed IPOB due to its activities, which it deemed a threat to national security. Justice Hamma Barka, who delivered the lead judgment, emphasized that national security takes precedence over individual rights when a country’s stability is at risk.
With its latest appeal, IPOB is seeking to overturn the ruling and challenge the legal basis of its proscription at the Supreme Court.
