We Shall Vigorously Resist It – Nnamdi Kanu Reacts To Ruling Labelling IPOB A Terrorist Group

The embattled leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has vowed to resist the ruling of the Court of Appeal in Abuja, which affirmed the proscription of IPOB and its designation as a terrorist organisation.

Naija News reports that on Thursday, the Abuja division of the Court of Appeal upheld an order by Justice Abdu Kafarati of the Federal High Court, Abuja, proscribing IPOB and designating it a terrorist organisation.

Reacting to the development, Kanu stated that the court’s ruling would be challenged within the ambit of the law, as the judgment did not pass the “muster of the Nigerian Constitution and the statutes pertinent to it.”

Kanu argued that the order of proscription by the Federal High Court was obtained through an ex parte application by the Federal Government, rather than through a hearing on notice by a judge-in-chambers, as prescribed by law.

He made this known during his routine meeting with his legal team, led 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, “Rising from our routine visitation to Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu today, he instructed the legal team to convey the following to members of the public: The ruling yesterday by the Court of Appeal affirming the proscription of IPOB as a terror group will live in infamy and shall be vigorously resisted within the parameters of the law—both municipal and international.

“Sooner rather than later, it shall be demonstrated that the judgment did not pass the muster of the Nigerian Constitution and the statutes pertinent to it.

“Members of the public should ponder this: One of the main issues we canvassed at the Court of Appeal was that the order of proscription by the Federal High Court was obtained through an ex parte application by the Federal Government, instead of through a hearing on notice by a judge-in-chambers, as prescribed by the pertinent law.

“We also argued that the proscription proceedings violated the hallowed doctrine of fair hearing enshrined in the Constitution, as IPOB was neither put on notice nor heard before the order of proscription was issued.

“In addition to these, we argued that the proscription directive issued to the Attorney-General was signed by the late Abba Kyari, and not by former President Buhari, as the relevant law required. The Court of Appeal acknowledged these irregularities but still went ahead to dismiss our appeal on the questionable premise that national security is an exception to the provisions of the Constitution.”