The Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal delivered the final verdict on Thursday, upholding the Federal Government’s 2017 declaration of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) as a terrorist organization.
This is a big blow to separatist agitations in the Southeast and South-South regions.
Background
It all started on September 15, 2017 when the then Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami (SAN) got an ex-parte order from the Federal High Court in Abuja to proscribe IPOB.
The late Chief Judge, Justice Adamu Abdu-Kafarati declared all IPOB activities illegal, saying the group was a threat to national security.
He also barred individuals from participating in its activities and ordered the publication of the proscription order in two national newspapers and an online platform.
IPOB appealed (CA/A/214/2018) in 2018, saying the proscription was illegal.
The group argued it could not be sued in Nigeria since it was not registered in the country, although it admitted to operating in over 40 countries.
But Justice Abdu-Kafarati dismissed this argument, saying IPOB was subject to Nigerian laws since it was operating in Nigeria.
Appeal Court’s Verdict
A three-man panel of the court, led by Justice Hamma Barka, affirmed the Federal High Court’s ruling in a unanimous judgment.
The justices settled all the issues raised by IPOB against the group, saying the Federal Government was within its constitutional powers to protect national security.
“IPOB is a threat to Nigeria’s existence and its people,” Justice Barka said in the lead judgment.
The court struck out the appeal.
The judgement is in line with Nigeria’s Terrorism Prevention Act which allows the government to proscribe groups linked to violence or destabilization.
Security experts say this gives the government the powers to crack down on separatist agitations especially in the Southeast where IPOB’s Eastern Security Network (ESN) has been involved in clashes with security forces.
But human rights activists warn against mixing up peaceful self determination with terrorism.
“While security threats must be addressed, the government must ensure due process and not suppress legitimate dissent,” Adebola Williams, a Lagos based lawyer said.
Reactions and Regional Tensions
The verdict has received mixed reactions. Many in the North and Southwest are hailing it as a win for national unity.
But some Southeast leaders are calling it heavy handed, saying dialogue not litigation is the way to address the region’s complaints.
IPOB’s media team has since described the verdict as “politically motivated”.
The Federal Government has also restated its commitment to the territorial integrity of Nigeria and asked citizens to report any activities of proscribed groups.
Legal experts say this case shows the need for clearer guidelines to differentiate between terrorist acts and civil activism.
Professor Chioma Nwankwo, a constitutional law lecturer at the University of Nigeria says “Nigeria’s security challenges require subtle solutions. While upholding the law is non-negotiable, addressing the root causes of agitation – marginalization and unemployment – is equally important.”
As the dust settles, this verdict sets the tone for how Nigeria’s judiciary will handle similar cases, balancing national security with human rights.
For the ordinary citizen, the hope is that stability and inclusivity will trump division.
Follow Us
