A Federal High Court in Abuja on January 18, 2018, held that the proscription of IPOB by President Muhammadu Buhari's government was in order.
The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has engaged the services of a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Chief Chukwuma-Machukwu Ume, to take up the 2018 appeal against its proscription by the Nigerian government.
A Federal High Court in Abuja on January 18, 2018, held that the proscription of IPOB by President Muhammadu Buhari's government was in order.
But IPOB through its lawyer, Ifeanyi Ejiofor, had approached the Court of Appeal insisting that the trial court erred in law, praying for the court to set aside the order of the lower court and the motion ex parte.
He had cited five grounds which included that the activities of IPOB were not within the definition of terrorism acts as enshrined in Section 2 (1)(a)(b) & (c) of the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, to warrant such proscription.
Ume, according to the special counsel for IPOB, Mr Alloy Ejimakor, has now taken over the existing appeal and he's expanding the grounds of arguments to help in securing a just and favourable determination of the appeals.
The proposed amended notice and grounds of appeal (which are now 18 in total) accuses the Attorney General of the Federation of “looking the other way while the Fulani herdsmen are killing, maiming and kidnapping all over Nigeria but on the other hand applying to court to proscribe (appellant) IPOB that do not cause any violence.”
He, therefore, sought an order granting leave to the appellant/applicant (IPOB) to amend its notice & grounds of appeal filed on 6th March 2018 by modifying the already existing five grounds of appeal and adding 13 more.
The counsel argued that IPOB will be greatly prejudiced if the application is refused.
Ground 10 of the appeal reads, “The Hon trial court erred in law when it failed to grant the Appellant application to set aside the three Orders it granted ex-parte to the Respondent proscribing the Appellant a terrorist organization without hearing from the Appellant and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice.”
Ground 12 says, “The Hon. trial court erred in law when it failed to accept the submission of the Appellant that the court acted without jurisdiction when it made the far-reaching three Order against the Appellant without hearing from the Appellant.”
Ground 14 reads, “The trial court Ruling of 18th January 2018 is altogether perverse and cannot be supported, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Meanwhile, the hearing date for the fresh appeal is yet to be fixed.
DOCUMENT : Indigenous Peopl... by Sahara Reporters