IPOB Takes Battle To Supreme Court, Fights Terrorism Label In Landmark Case

Dissatisfied with the appellate court’s decision, IPOB’s legal team—led by Aloy Ejimakor and supported by P.A.N. Ejiofor, Maxwell Opara, Jude Okey Ugwuanyi, Patrick Agazie, Mandela Umegborogu, and Magnus Ikenna Nwangwu—filed an appeal at the apex court, arguing that the ruling breaches constitutional rights to fair hearing.

In its notice of appeal, IPOB outlined several core legal arguments:

1. Violation of Fair Hearing (Section 36, 1999 Constitution)
   IPOB claims the ex parte order that led to its proscription was granted without giving the group an opportunity to present its case, thus violating its constitutional right to a fair hearing.
2. Misinterpretation of National Security vs. Fundamental Rights
   The group asserts that the appellate court misapplied constitutional principles by placing national security concerns above fundamental human rights, particularly the right to fair hearing.
3. Failure to Meet Criminal Law Standards
   IPOB argues that the Federal Government failed to provide sufficient evidence proving the group’s involvement in terrorism, as required under criminal law.
4. Ethnic Discrimination Against Igbos (Section 42, 1999 Constitution)
   The appeal claims that the proscription disproportionately targets IPOB members, primarily of Igbo origin, amounting to ethnic discrimination.
5. Judicial Overreach (Section 305, 1999 Constitution)
   IPOB contends that the Court of Appeal overstepped its authority by upholding a decision that effectively declared a “state of emergency,” a power constitutionally reserved for the President.
6. Right to Self-Determination Under International Law
   Citing the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, IPOB maintains that its push for Biafra is a legitimate exercise of the right to self-determination and does not warrant a terrorism designation.