Referendum Request: Indigenous People Of Biafra Fights Proscription In Fresh Appeal, Engages Senior Advocate


Report By : Wondrous Nnaem |

The Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, has engaged the services of Chukwuma-Machukwu Ume, SAN to follow up on its 2018 appeal instituted against its proscription by the federal government. Recall that the Federal High Court Abuja had on January 18, 2018 held that the proscription of IPOB by the federal government was in order. But IPOB through its lawyer at the time, Ifeanyi Ejiofor Esq, had approached the Court of Appeal insisting that the trial court erred in law, praying that the lower court’s orders and motion exparte should be set aside.

He had cited five grounds which include that the activities of IPOB were not within the definition of terrorism acts as enshrined in Section 2 (1)(a)(b) & (c) of the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, to warrant such proscription. However, Ume, has now concluded that there was need for amendments of the existing grounds of arguments to help in a just and favorable determination of the appeals.

Based on court documents made available to our Correspondent by IPOB special counsel, Alloy Ejimakor Esq, the proposed amended notice and grounds of appeal ( which are now 18 in total) accuses the Attorney General of the Federation of “looking the other way while the Fulani herdsmen are killing ,maiming and kidnapping all over Nigeria but on the other hand applying to court to proscribe (appellant) IPOB that do not cause any violence.”

He therefore sought for an order granting leave to the appellant/applicant (IPOB) to amend its notice & grounds of appeal filed on 6th March 2018 by modifying the already existing five grounds of appeal and adding 13 more. Date for hearing on the fresh appeal is yet to be fixed as of the time of this report. The senior lawyer argued that IPOB will be greatly prejudiced if the application is refused. Part of the proposed grounds of the appeal reads:


The trial court Ruling of 18th January 2018 is altogether perverse and cannot be supported, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.


The Hon. trial court erred in law when it failed to accept the submission of the Appellant that the court acted without jurisdiction when it made the far- reaching three Order against the Appellant without hearing from the Appellant.


The Hon trial court erred in law when it failed to grant the Appellant application to set aside the three Orders it granted ex-parte to the Respondent proscribing the Appellant a terrorist organization without hearing from the Appellant and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice.”

SOURCE : Easternpilot