We argued before the Court of Appeal that the proscription order was made through an ex parte application by the Federal Government, which bypassed the required process of a judge-in-chambers hearing. We also pointed out that IPOB was denied the right to a fair hearing before the order was issued.
By Abdulrahman Aliagan
In a fresh twist to the protracted legal and political battle over the status of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), its leader, Nnamdi Kanu, has vowed to challenge the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Abuja, which upheld the Federal Government’s designation of IPOB as a terrorist organization. This ruling has reignited discussions about the legality of the proscription and the broader implications for the rights of self-determination groups in Nigeria.
The roots of this legal and political saga stretch back to 2017, when the Nigerian government, under then-President Muhammadu Buhari, proscribed IPOB. The proscription followed a military crackdown in the Southeast region, where the group was gaining significant traction through mass protests and campaigns advocating for an independent Biafra.
The Federal Government secured the proscription order through an ex parte motion—one where only the government’s lawyers were present—granted by the Federal High Court in Abuja under Justice Abdu Kafarati. This decision labeled IPOB as a terrorist organization, citing its activities as a threat to national security. However, IPOB, through its legal team and supporters, has consistently rejected this classification, arguing that it is a non-violent group seeking self-determination through peaceful means.
Following IPOB’s proscription, its leader, Nnamdi Kanu, fled Nigeria after security forces stormed his residence in Abia State. He remained abroad until his controversial re-arrest and extradition from Kenya to Nigeria in June 2021—a move that sparked diplomatic and legal controversy. Since then, Kanu has been in the custody of the Department of State Services (DSS), facing charges of treason and terrorism.
His legal team has consistently argued that his arrest violated international law, and they have made repeated attempts to challenge both his detention and the proscription of IPOB. While some courts, including the Court of Appeal in 2022, ruled in favor of Kanu’s release, the Federal Government appealed and secured a stay of execution, keeping him in detention.
On January 31, 2025, the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal reaffirmed IPOB’s status as a proscribed organization, maintaining that its designation as a terrorist group was legally justified. The court upheld the earlier ruling by the late Justice Kafarati, dismissing IPOB’s appeal on the grounds of national security concerns.
In its decision, the court acknowledged several arguments raised by IPOB’s legal team, including:
The claim that the proscription order was obtained via ex parte application, denying IPOB a fair hearing.
The argument that the proscription order was signed by the late Abba Kyari, then Chief of Staff to the President, instead of President Buhari himself.
The assertion that the Nigerian Constitution does not support the arbitrary proscription of groups without due process.
Despite these claims, the court ruled that the proscription remained valid in the interest of national security, effectively dismissing IPOB’s appeal.
In response to the ruling, Nnamdi Kanu instructed his legal team, led by Aloy Ejimakor, to vigorously challenge the judgment at both national and international levels. According to Ejimakor, Kanu remains resolute that IPOB’s proscription is unconstitutional and will not stand up to legal scrutiny.
In a statement following a routine meeting with Kanu at the DSS facility in Abuja, Ejimakor said:
“Following today’s meeting with Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, he directed the legal team to inform the public that the recent ruling by the Court of Appeal affirming IPOB’s proscription will be vigorously resisted within the boundaries of both Nigerian and international law.
“We argued before the Court of Appeal that the proscription order was made through an ex parte application by the Federal Government, which bypassed the required process of a judge-in-chambers hearing. We also pointed out that IPOB was denied the right to a fair hearing before the order was issued.
“Additionally, we highlighted that the proscription order, signed by the late Abba Kyari instead of former President Buhari, violated legal protocol. Although the Court of Appeal acknowledged these discrepancies, it dismissed our appeal, citing national security as a justification, which we contend is a questionable interpretation of the law.”
With this latest ruling, the battle over IPOB’s legal status appears far from over. Kanu’s legal team has hinted at further legal challenges, potentially escalating the matter to the Supreme Court and even seeking redress through international legal mechanisms.
Meanwhile, the ruling has sparked renewed debates on the Nigerian government’s approach to handling separatist movements. While IPOB remains a deeply polarizing entity, human rights organizations and some political analysts argue that branding it a terrorist group without due process sets a dangerous precedent for civil liberties in the country.
For now, Kanu remains in detention, IPOB remains a proscribed organization, and the legal battles continue—further fueling the complex and contentious debate over Biafra’s future in Nigeria.