The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has appealed to the Supreme Court in an attempt to reverse the Court of Appeal’s ruling that sustained its terrorist organisation designation and proscription.
Recall that the Court of Appeal, in a ruling, maintained the Federal High Court’s decision to ban IPOB and designate it as a terrorist organisation.
An order prohibiting IPOB was issued on January 18, 2018, by the late Justice Abdu-Kafarati, who was the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court in Abuja.
As a threat to national security, Justice Abdu-Kafarati ruled that all IPOB operations were unlawful, especially in the South-East and South-South regions of Nigeria.
He instructed the Attorney General of the Federation to post the proscription order online and in two major newspapers.
The High Court’s ruling was contested by IPOB in the appeal court because they were unhappy. On January 30, 2025, however, a three-member Court of Appeal court unanimously decided that the Nigerian government had acted legally in outlawing IPOB.
The appellate court concluded that IPOB’s actions threatened Nigeria’s survival and the safety of its people in its main ruling, which was delivered by Justice Hamma Barka.
The appellate court deemed IPOB’s appeal to be unmeritorious and dismissed it.
The IPOB persistently protested the appellate court’s ruling and, on February 7, 2025, submitted a five-ground notice of appeal to the Supreme Court.
In the case designated SC/CA/A/214/2018, IPOB is listed as the only appellant and the Attorney General of the Federation as the only respondent.
In the appeal, IPOB contended that the trial court’s determination that the group posed a threat to national security was unlawful.
It further argued that the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that IPOB’s entitlement to a fair hearing under Sections 36(2) and 45(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) was superseded by national security considerations.
The IPOB contended that the procedure by which it was banned and designated as a terrorist organisation was unconstitutional through its attorney, Aloy Ejimakor.
Ejimakor highlighted that any limitations on rights under the Constitution cannot take effect until the President declares a state of emergency under Section 305.
The group additionally argued that the appeal court’s denial of IPOB’s constitutional right to a fair hearing was based on an inability to declare a national security or emergency threat.
