Latest
IPOB Leader Nnamdi Kanu Reacts Fiercely To Terrorism Label, Promises Defiance
Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has vowed to challenge the ruling by the Court of Appeal in Abuja, which upheld IPOB’s proscription and designation as a terrorist organization.....KINDLY READ THE FULL STORY HERE▶
The Abuja division of the Court of Appeal confirmed an earlier order by Justice Abdu Kafarati of the Federal High Court, which proscribed IPOB and labeled it a terrorist group.
In response, Kanu announced that the judgment would be contested within the confines of the law, arguing that the decision did not align with the Nigerian Constitution and the relevant legal provisions.
Kanu emphasized that the proscription order was obtained through an ex parte application by the Federal Government, bypassing the required judicial process of a hearing with notice, as stipulated by law.
He made these statements during a routine meeting with his legal team, headed by lead counsel Aloy Ejimakor, at the Department of State Services (DSS) facility in Abuja.
A statement issued by Ejimakor after the meeting read in part: “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.
“It will soon become clear that the ruling does not hold up under the scrutiny of the Nigerian Constitution and applicable statutes.
“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.”
