The Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB) has escalated its legal fight against the Nigerian government by filing an appeal with the Supreme Court.
This move follows a January 30 ruling by the Court of Appeal in Abuja, which upheld the group’s proscription as a terrorist organization.
A three-member panel, led by Justice Hamma Barka, unanimously dismissed IPOB’s earlier appeal, calling it “unmeritorious” and affirming the federal government’s authority to ban the secessionist group.
Background
IPOB’s designation as a terrorist organization dates back to 2017, when a Federal High Court in Abuja, under Justice Abdul Kafarati, ruled that the group’s activities – particularly in Nigeria’s South-East and South-South regions – constituted terrorism.
Former President Muhammadu Buhari swiftly signed an executive order formalizing the proscription.
The government accused IPOB of inciting violence, including attacks on security forces and public infrastructure, though the group has repeatedly denied these allegations, framing its mission as a non-violent push for self-determination.
Grounds of IPOB’s Supreme Court Appeal
In a 21-page notice of appeal filed on February 7, IPOB’s legal team, led by Aloy Ejimakor, outlined five key arguments. Central to their case is the claim that the Court of Appeal overlooked constitutional safeguards, including the right to a fair hearing.
The group argues that the Terrorism Prevention Act (2013) was misapplied, as the original proscription order was issued ex parte – without notifying IPOB or allowing its representatives to contest the allegations in court.
The appeal also challenges the lower court’s reliance on a “preponderance of evidence” standard rather than requiring proof “beyond reasonable doubt” for criminal accusations like terrorism and murder.
Legal experts, such as human rights lawyer Chidi Odinkalu, have previously criticized this approach, noting that terrorism charges demand rigorous evidentiary scrutiny under international law.
IPOB further contends that the appellate court overstepped its authority by invoking “national security emergencies,” a power reserved exclusively for Nigeria’s president under the Constitution.
Broader Implications for Human Rights and Security
This case raises critical questions about balancing national security interests with civil liberties.
While the government maintains that IPOB’s activities threaten Nigeria’s sovereignty, organizations like Amnesty International have documented human rights abuses during security operations in the South-East, including extrajudicial killings and arbitrary detentions linked to IPOB’s proscription.
A 2022 report by the Council on Foreign Relations noted that over 1,000 civilians in the region died in clashes between security forces and separatist groups between 2016 and 2021.
Legal scholars emphasize that the Supreme Court’s decision could set a precedent for how terrorism laws are applied in politically sensitive cases.
Professor Ayo Olukotun of Olabisi Onabanjo University warns that conflating dissent with terrorism risks eroding judicial independence and stifling legitimate advocacy.
As the Supreme Court prepares to review IPOB’s appeal, the outcome will hinge on interpretations of constitutional rights, procedural fairness, and the evidentiary thresholds for terrorism designations.
The ruling will not only determine IPOB’s legal status but also shape Nigeria’s approach to managing separatist movements and safeguarding civil liberties. With tensions persisting in the South-East, the case underscores the delicate interplay between security imperatives and the rule of law in Africa’s most populous nation.