News

Proscription: IPOB condemns Appeal Court ruling, vows legal challenge

The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has vehemently condemned the recent Court of Appeal decision upholding its proscription, describing the ruling as a “rape of justice” and a blatant disregard for Nigeria’s constitution.

In a statement issued by its Media and Publicity Secretary, Comrade Emma Powerful, IPOB criticized the late Justice Abdul Kafarati’s decision that initially proscribed the group, calling it illegal and unconstitutional.

The group asserted that ex-parte court orders are temporary legal measures that should last no more than 14 days. The proscription order against IPOB, they argued, has unlawfully persisted for nearly eight years.

IPOB highlighted multiple legal infractions in the proscription process: Ex-Parte Orders Misused: IPOB claimed it is “kindergarten law” that ex-parte court orders in civil procedures cannot confer criminal liability on any individual or organization, as was done against them.

No State of Emergency Declared: The group emphasized that no state of emergency was declared in any part of the South-East or South-South, nor was there public disorder attributed to IPOB to justify the proscription.

Invalid Authorization: The law requires the President of Nigeria to sign the memo authorizing such a proscription. IPOB noted that neither former President Muhammadu Buhari nor then-Vice President Yemi Osinbajo signed the order. Instead, it was reportedly signed by the late Abba Kyari, Buhari’s Chief of Staff, who lacked the legal authority to do so.

IPOB accused certain judges in Abuja of being influenced by “haters of IPOB” and undermining the rule of law to deliver politically motivated judgments.

They further criticized the use of “dubious reliance” on past rulings, such as Asari Dokubo’s bail denial, to justify violations of individual rights and the wrongful branding of IPOB as a terrorist organization.

ALSO READ  Umahi flags off tolling on Federal highways to recoup $460.8m investment

The group maintained that IPOB’s activities have always been lawful and peaceful, asserting that no act of terrorism had been attributed to them at the time of the proscription. Instead, they accused the Nigerian military of unjustified violence against their members during “Operation Python Dance.”

IPOB vowed to challenge the Court of Appeal’s decision and pursue litigation against anyone who refers to the group as a proscribed organization without evidence of terrorist activities.

“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 read.

This development continues to stir debates over judicial integrity and the rule of law in Nigeria’s handling of the IPOB case.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button