The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has strongly opposed the recent Court of Appeal verdict that upheld its proscription, labeling the ruling as a “rape of justice” and a direct violation of Nigeria’s constitution.
In a statement released by its Media and Publicity Secretary, Comrade Emma Powerful, IPOB criticized the late Justice Abdul Kafarati’s initial decision that led to the proscription, calling it illegal and unconstitutional.
The group argued that ex-parte court orders are temporary measures that should not last beyond 14 days, yet the proscription order against IPOB has remained in effect for nearly eight years.
IPOB pointed out several legal flaws in the proscription process.
Ex-Parte Orders Misused: The group claimed that it is “kindergarten law” that ex-parte court orders in civil procedures cannot impose criminal liability on any individual or organization, yet this was done against them.
No State of Emergency Declared: IPOB emphasized that no state of emergency was declared in the South-East or South-South, nor was any public disorder linked to IPOB to justify its proscription.
Invalid Authorization: According to IPOB, Nigerian law mandates that the President must sign any document authorizing such a proscription.
However, they 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, they argued, had no legal authority to do so.
IPOB further alleged that certain judges in Abuja had been influenced by “haters of IPOB” and had undermined the rule of law to deliver politically motivated judgments.
They also condemned what they called a “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.
The group insisted that IPOB has always conducted its activities lawfully and peacefully, stating that no act of terrorism had been attributed to them at the time of proscription.
Instead, they accused the Nigerian military of unjustified violence against their members during “Operation Python Dance.”
Vowing to challenge the Court of Appeal’s ruling, IPOB declared its intent to take legal action 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.
