IPOB has taken its legal battle to the Supreme Court, challenging the appellate court’s ruling that upheld its proscription as terrorist. The Court of Appeal had ruled in favor of the Federal Government, reinforcing IPOB’s designation as an outlawed group. Determined to overturn the decision, IPOB is seeking a Supreme Court judgment that restores its legal status.
Court of Appeal Upholds Proscription
The legal dispute dates back to January 18, 2018, when the late Justice Abdu-Kafarati, then Chief Judge of the Federal High Court in Abuja, declared IPOB a terrorist organization. In his ruling, he stated that the group’s activities posed a threat to national security, particularly in the South-East and South-South regions of Nigeria. Following the ruling, the Attorney General of the Federation was instructed to publish the proscription order in national newspapers and an online platform.
Dissatisfied with this decision, IPOB took the case to the Court of Appeal, hoping to overturn the lower court’s ruling. However, on January 30, 2025, a three-member panel of the appellate court unanimously upheld the proscription, dismissing IPOB’s appeal as lacking merit. Justice Hamma Barka, who delivered the lead judgment, emphasized that IPOB’s activities endangered national unity and security.
IPOB Takes Case to Supreme Court
Refusing to relent, IPOB filed a five-ground notice of appeal at the Supreme Court on February 7, 2025. The suit, marked SC/CA/A/214/2018, lists the Attorney General of the Federation as the sole respondent. IPOB argues that the appellate court erred in law by affirming its proscription without properly considering constitutional protections and rights to fair hearing.
The group contends that the decision to outlaw it was made without due process, violating sections 36(2) and 45(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). IPOB’s counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, insists that any restrictions on fundamental rights must follow a formal declaration of a state of emergency, as stipulated under Section 305 of the Constitution.
Violation of Constitutional Rights Alleged
IPOB further argues that the Court of Appeal lacked the authority to determine national security threats or declare emergencies that justify restricting constitutional rights. It claims that the judgment discriminates against its members based on ethnicity and political beliefs, violating non-derogable constitutional provisions.
Citing Article 20 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, IPOB asserts its right to self-determination, arguing that oppressed or colonized people have the right to liberate themselves. The group maintains that its activities align with internationally recognized principles of self-determination.
Legal Precedents and International Law
IPOB emphasizes that the African Charter, which Nigeria has ratified, guarantees the right to self-determination and should take precedence in assessing the legitimacy of its actions. The organization insists that its proscription contradicts international human rights laws that protect political movements advocating for autonomy.
In its appeal, IPOB urges the Supreme Court to overturn the Court of Appeal’s ruling and reinstate its legal status. The decision now rests with the country’s highest court, which will determine whether IPOB’s designation as a terrorist organization aligns with Nigeria’s legal framework and international obligations.
Awaiting Supreme Court’s Verdict
As IPOB awaits the Supreme Court’s decision, legal analysts predict that the case could set a major precedent regarding the intersection of national security and civil rights in Nigeria. The ruling could either reinforce the government’s stance or redefine the limits of proscription laws concerning political movements. Until then, the legal battle over IPOB’s status continues, drawing significant attention both locally and internationally.
Follow us on Socials: