The Nation Newspaper

Tag: IPOB

  • MASSOB begs Tinubu to release IPOB’s Kanu

    MASSOB begs Tinubu to release IPOB’s Kanu

    The Movement for the Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB) has appealed to President Bola Tinubu to release the leader of the indigenous people of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, for the sake of national unity

    MASSOB leader, Comrade Uchenna Madu, told The Nation Kanu’s release will contribute to national healing and unity, fostering better relations between different ethnic groups and the Federal Government.

    He aruged Kanu’s release will pave the way for dialogue aimed at addressing the grievances of the southeastern region, which according to him, led to calls for self-determination and greater autonomy.

    Read Also: Tinubu making Nigeria great again, says Lagos lawmaker

    According to him: “Our call for Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s release also reflects the sentiments of many individuals and groups in Igbo land, Nigeria and globally who continue to advocate for Kanu’s release and see it as a critical step towards addressing broader political and social issues.

    “MASSOB’s appeal also serves not only as a demand for Kanu’s release but also as a reflection of broader aspirations for justice and recognition of the rights of Biafra people within the Nigerian federation.

    “The outcome of this appeal may influence future dialogue between the government and various ethnic groups in Nigeria.”

  • Kanu admitted smuggling radio transmitter into Nigeria – DSS’ witness

    Kanu admitted smuggling radio transmitter into Nigeria – DSS’ witness

    A prosecution witness in the trial of Nnamdi Kanu, the self-acclaimed leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), said on Wednesday that the defendant admitted smuggling a radio transmitter into the country.

    The witness, an official of the Department of State Services (DSS), identified a video recording of DSS officials’ inspection of the transmitter in Ubuluisiuzor, Anambra State, allegedly used by Kanu for his Radio Biafra and which, the witness said, the defendant admitted smuggling into the country.

    The video recording, stored in a disc, was one of about four video recordings admitted during Wednesday’s proceedings in which the DSS denied subjecting Kanu to duress and asking him to say things about ex-President Goodluck Jonathan and former Governor Rochas Okorocha.

    At the commencement of proceedings, the DSS official, who was the third prosecution witness (PW3), while being led by prosecution lawyer, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), said he knew Kanu to be the leader of IPOB, a terrorist organisation.

    The witness said he also knew Kanu as the founder of Radio Biafra, which he allegedly used to incite the public to maim and kill

    He said he first met Kanu on 21 October 21, 2015 when he and three others were asked to interview him and obtain his statements in relation to his activities as the founder of IPOB and Radio Biafra.

    He said the interview sessions, which happened between October 21 and 24, 2015 were recorded on video with the consent of the defendant, who later wrote statements.

    Defence lawyer, Kanu Agabi (SAN) did not object when Awomolo applied to render the video recordings, which Justice James Omotosho subsequently admitted in evidence.

    Agabi, however, objected when Awomolo applied to tender the written statements, noting that the defendant claimed he did not make them voluntarily, a claim Awomolo countered.

    In view of the development, Justice Omotosho demanded that the defence specify what constituted the alleged involuntariness.

    He then halted proceedings briefly to allow one of the lawyers to the defendant, Paul Erokoro (SAN) to interact with Kanu, who was seated in the dock, on the issue.

    When Erokoro returned, he told the court that Kanu told him that DSS officials denied him access to his lawyer, threatened not to allow him on bail and denied him the one hour granted him daily to receive fresh air in view of his health challenge.

    The lawyer said Kanu also told him that his interrogators asked him to say things about ex-President Goodluck Jonathan and former Imo State Governor, Rochas Okorocha, which were not his words.

    At that point, Justice Omotosho ordered the conduct of a trial within a trial to ascertain the voluntariness or others of the defendant’s statements.

    Awomolo then called PW3 as the prosecution’s first witness in the trial. The witness denied that Kanu was subjected to any form of duress or coercion.

    The witness faulted Kanu’s claim that he was kept in solitary confinement in an underground cell and that he suffered from any ill

    PW3, who said Kanu was given preferential treatment and served bottled water during the interview sessions, said he was surprised to hear the allegations made by the defendant.

    He also denied that anyone asked Kanu to say things about Jonathan and Okorocha, adding that the defendant “spoke voluntarily and truthfully in the interviews.”

    The DSS officials said the defendant was referring to their interactions over the interview he (Kanu) earlier granted to Sahara Reporters and in respect of which they asked for some clarifications.

    He said, “During the October 24, 2015, interview, the Sahara Reporters interview was played to him to confirm if he granted the interview, which he confirmed.”

    The witness added that in the Sahara Reporter interview, Kanu referred to Nigeria as a zoo; he claimed that Okorocha and others have Islamised Nigeria. He added that Kanu referred to the then President Muhammadu Buhari “in a very derogatory language.”

    Three of the recordings of the interview sessions were played in court, showing Kanu, wearing a shirt and a pair of trousers, interacted freely with the DSS officials.

    He smiled at some points and demanded to be served a particular brand of bottled water, which was handed to him by the DSS officials.

    In the video, Kanu tried to rationalise his actions, including his many broadcasts, which he said were intended to bring about changes in the affairs of the country.

    He said IPOB was meant to actualise the self-determination of the people of Biafra, while the Biafra Volunteer Force was patterned after the Salvation Army, an army of volunteers who help to propagate the messages of IPOB.

    Under cross-examination by Erokoro, PW1 (who was the prosecution’s sole witness in the trial within trial) insisted that Kanu was never subjected to coercion and that all the complaints he raised were addressed.

    While testifying as the sole defence witness in the trial within trial, Kanu insisted that he was denied access to his lawyers and threatened by a DSS investigator, who he described as Mr. Brown Ukuaba, an Assistant Director, Investigation.

    Read Also: IPOB: Court cautions defence team against delay in Kanu’s trial

    Kanu said when he was first arrested in Lagos in 2015, he was kept in chains and later blindfolded while being transported to Abuja. He said he was kept in an underground cell and solitary confinement.

    He claimed that the video recordings played in court were edited.

    Under cross-examination by Awomolo aid his interview with the DSS officials enabled him to explain the finances and hierarchy of the IPOB and its objectives

    Kanu said doctors attended to him at the DSS custody, adding that “they (the DSS authorities) have a good doctor there.”

    At the conclusion of the trial within trial, Justice Omotosho adjourned till May 29 at 12 noon for adoption of parties’ final written address, preparatory to his ruling, which he fixed for 2pm same date.

  • IPOB: Court cautions defence team against delay in Kanu’s trial

    IPOB: Court cautions defence team against delay in Kanu’s trial

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has cautioned the defence’s legal team against delay in the conduct of its case in the ongoing terrorism trial of Nnamdi Kanu, the detained self-acclaimed leader of the proscribed separatist group, the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB).

    Justice James Omotosho issued the caution on Wednesday after Paul Erokoro (SAN), who conducted the defence’s case, suddenly requested for adjournment midway into his cross-examination of the second prosecution witness.

    In reaction to Erokoro’s request for adjournment, prosecuting lawyer Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN) expressed discomfort and raised an objection.

    Awomolo reminded the court that it had, on the last date, chosen to allocate sufficient time for the defence to conclude with the second prosecution witness between May 21 and 22.

    He wondered why Erokoro suddenly became unwilling to continue with the witness.

    Erokoro, however, said he decided to ask for an adjournment because the defence plans to play some video recordings which were not immediately available in court.

    Ruling, Justice Omotosho agreed with Awomolo’s observation that the court, on May 14, chose to clear its schedule to enable the defence to conclude with the second prosecution witness.

    The judge, however, agreed to grant the adjournment, warning that the court will deem the defence to have closed its cross-examination of the witness should the defence team fail to conclude with the witness on May 22.

    Earlier, the lead defence lawyer, Kanu Agabi (SAN) and Awomolo SAN expressed concern about the conduct of a member of the defence’s legal team, Alloy Ejimakor, whom they accused of being behind the misrepresentation of court proceedings on his social media platforms.

    Agabi said he got a letter from the prosecution in which it expressed concerns about some publications made on social media. He then sought the court’s opinions on the issue.

    The judge pushed the issue back to him and sought his opinion, and Agabi responded by saying he would apologise to the court, even though he knew nothing about the publications.

    When asked to react, Awomolo confirmed that he wrote a letter on May 14 protesting the misrepresentations that were being published on social media.

    Awomolo said he learnt that the court’s proceedings on the case was being streamed live by some individuals, some of whom are lawyers. 

    The prosecuting lawyer noted that the case is a very sensitive one that should not be trivialised, adding that “it is not fair to manipulate what happened in court in the public domain.”

    While still addressing the court, Awomolo reached for his phone in a bid to draw the court’s attention to what he said Alloy Ejimakor was doing on social media.

    He handed the phone to Agabi, pointing to a recent post he said Ejimakor made on his social media platform.

    Agabi collected the phone from Awomolo and told that court that he had also read something about himself on the social media, misrepresenting happenings in the case.

    Reacting, Justice Omotosho said the developments do not benefit both sides, adding, “it will only delay proceedings. We should not lay emphasis on what is happening on social media.

    “Although one of our brothers has not been acting well. I have said it before, we should act professionally. 

    “Most of these things are gross misconduct for which you could be disbarred. It is misconduct. I don’t want to mention any names. The person knows himself. Let us act well,” Justice Omotosho said.

    Ejimakor, who is a member of the defence legal team, sat quietly in the courtroom as everyone spoke about his conduct.

    At the resumption of cross examination on Wednesday, the second prosecution witness said he did not know whether Radio Biafra has stopped broadcasting, but that Kanu confirmed being the founder of the station.

    The witness, an official of the DSS, said the agency was not being influenced by politicians or political oppontees, but that the agency is under the office of the National Security Adviser (NSA).

    He said he was not part of those who arrested Kanu in Kenya and rejected the suggestion by Erokoro that the DSS was involved in how the defendant was apprehended in Kenya.

    The witness, who said his agency does not engage in foreign operations, said it was not part of his brief to ascertain Kanu’s claim that he was kidnapped in Kenya.

    He said he knew Nigeria went through colonial rule, but did not read anywhere where Nigerians who called for independence were labelled terrorists.

    On whether he had ever heard of Odimegwu Ojukwu, the witness said Ojukwu was a member of the Nigerian Army who later decided to wage war against Nigeria.

    He said Biafra has never been a recognised entity anywhere in Nigeria.

    The witness said there was nothing wrong in people calling for change through peaceful means, but that Kanu resorted to calling for violence and killings in his broadcasts on Radio Biafra.

    He said he is not aware that the defendant called Simon Ekpa to stop what he was doing.

    On whether he is aware that courts in the country have held that the arrest and detention of the defendant is illegal, the witness said he read about them online and in the newspapers.

    Erokoro then tendered three judgments given in favour of Kanu by three courts, which the court admitted in evidence.

    The first was delivered on January 19, 2022, by the Umuahia division of the HIgh Court of Abia State; the second, delivered on October 26, 2022, by a Federal High Court in Umuahia and the third delivered on October 26, 2023, by a High Court of Enugu State.

    In the judgments, the courts faulted Kanu’s arrest and detention and the invasion of his home in Abia State by some soldiers.

    The witness said the DSS was only involved in Kanu’s arrest in Lagos, adding that the defendant called for the killing of security personnel.

    On Erokoro’s suggestion that Kanu’s call on his followers to kill security personnel who try to kill them was a self-defence strategy, the witness said he is not aware of any law in Nigeria that allows anybody to kill a fellow human being.

    He said he was not aware that the Director General of the DSS called on Nigerians to engage in self-defence.

    The witness said he was aware that former Defence Minister, General Theophilus Danjuma, once claimed that security personnel in the country were not neutral in the security challenge being experienced in the country.

    Further hearing resumes on May 22.

  • FG’s witness tenders Jonathan’s ex-aide’s death certificate allegedly killed by IPOB

    FG’s witness tenders Jonathan’s ex-aide’s death certificate allegedly killed by IPOB

     The Federal Government’s witness, identified as BBB, on Wednesday tendered a certified true copy (CTC) of death certificate of Ahmed Gulak, allegedly murdered by members of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) in 2012 for alleged disobedience to the sit-at-home order.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the late Gulak was the former Special Adviser on Political Affairs to ex-President Good luck Jonathan,.

    BBB, who was the 2nd prosecution witness (PW-2) and shielded in the ongoing trial of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of IPOB, tendered the document before Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja while being led in evidence by FG’s lawyer, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN.

    Upon resumed hearing, Awomolo informed the court that though the matter was scheduled for cross examination of PW-2, he had a question to ask the witness.

    “We ask for a permission  to ask a question my lord,” he said

    Read Also: IPOB: Why we want Simon Ekpa back in Nigeria – AGF Fagbemi

    Kanu’s lawyer, Chief Kanu Agabi, SAN, did not oppose Awomolo’s application and the judge directed him to go ahead.

    Awomolo then asked BBB that one of the last evidence he gave was that during the radio broadcast made by Kanu, he called for a sit-at-home, leading to the death of Gulak.

    The witness confirmed the statement.

    He said he participated in some of the investigations leading to Gulak’s death.

    Besides  he said he had a certificate of his death in the courtroom from the police dated July 18, 2021.

    According to the witness, this is a certified true copy of medical report of Ahmed Gulak

    When the document was shown to Agabi, he said he did not have any objection and Justice Omotosho admitted it in evidence and marked as Exhibit PWJ.

    Awomolo then sought the court permission for the document to be given to the witness to read in the open court.

    BBB, who read the content of the death certificate, said the document was from the Nigeria Police, Owerri in Imo about Ahmed.Gulak who was allegedly shot dead by hoodlums belonging to IPOB in 2021.

    After the question, Agabi began the cross examination of the witness.

    (NAN)

  • Troops arrest notorious gun runner Buhari Umar, kill IPOB commander

    Troops arrest notorious gun runner Buhari Umar, kill IPOB commander

    The Defense Headquarters has announced the arrest of Buhari Umar, a notorious gunrunner and kidnap kingpin who has been terrorising communities across Gombe, Bauchi, Plateau, and Kaduna states.

    In a statement on Thursday in Abuja, the Director of Defence Media Operations, Major General Markus Kangye, also revealed that troops had eliminated several terrorists, including a wanted leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nkwachi Eze. Eze, who had been coordinating attacks and kidnappings in the South East, was neutralised during a military operation.

    Kangye further disclosed that troops arrested a five-man kidnapping syndicate in the Lafia Local Government Area of Nasarawa State. The suspects were identified as Hassan Mohammed, Saleh Sani, Idi Yusuf, Adamu Danmai, and Hassan Bello.

    Throughout April, troops rescued a total of 173 kidnapped victims, while 204 terrorists and their family members voluntarily surrendered. In addition, 430 individuals suspected of oil theft and other criminal activities were arrested.

    Highlighting efforts in the Niger Delta, Kangye said troops of Operation DELTA SAFE thwarted oil theft activities valued at over ₦1.9 billion in just one week.

    Read Also: Troops arrest 23 suspected oil thieves, recover 180,000 litres of stolen products

    He reaffirmed the military’s commitment to ridding the country of criminal elements and restoring peace across all troubled regions.

    “The breakdown is as follows: 1,009,733 litres of stolen crude oil, 304,811 litres of illegally refined AGO and 3,480 litres of DPK, 19,875 litres of PMS, and 1,600 litres of engine oil. Additionally, they discovered and destroyed 351 crude oil cooking ovens, 418 dugout pits, 30 boats, 9 speedboats, 160 storage tanks, 721 drums, and 95 illegal refining sites,” he said

    “Other items recovered include pumping machines, drilling machines, tricycles, motorcycles, mobile phones, and 42 vehicles.

    “Additionally, troops recovered large quantities of various arms, such as automatic weapons, RPG tubes, machine guns, locally fabricated guns, and improvised explosive devices. Also, some cache of live cartridges and assorted ammunition were recovered.”

  • BREAKING: IPOB: Judge bars Kanu’s in-law from court for publishing live videos of proceedings

    BREAKING: IPOB: Judge bars Kanu’s in-law from court for publishing live videos of proceedings

    Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered Mrs. Favour Kanu, a sister in-law to the self acclaimed leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu to vacate the courtroom.

    Justice Omotosho made the order barring Favour from witnessing further proceedings open finding out that she recorded the court’s proceedings and published it on her social media platform.

    The judge, who barred her from three subsequent sittings of the court, said he would have cited her for contempt of court, but for the appeals from the defence lawyer, Kanu Agabi.

    Read Also: IPOB: Kanu’s associate, Simon Ekpa, will soon be returned for trial – DSS tells court

    Before handing out his decision, the judge invited Favour, said to be the wife of Nnamdi Kanu ‘s brother, to the front of the court and asked her what informed her action.

    Favour said she was streaming what was happening in the court live, but did not know that the judge was still sitting.

    She apologised and promised not to do same again.

    Details shortly…

  • UPDATED: IPOB: NJC faults report of Kanu’s release, return to Kenya

    UPDATED: IPOB: NJC faults report of Kanu’s release, return to Kenya

    The National Judicial Council (NJC) has faulted media reports claiming that the detained self acclaimed leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has been ordered released and returned to Kenya by the Chief Justice of Nigeria and Chairman of the NJC, Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun.

    In a statement on Thursday, NJC’s Deputy Director (Information), Mrs. Kemi Ogedengbe said there was no basis for such development because the CJN is currently not involved in Kanu’s trial before a Federal High Court in Abuja.

    The statement reads: “The attention of the National Judicial Council (NJC) has been drawn to media reports that the Hon. Chief Justice of Nigeria and Chairman of the Council, Hon. Justice Kudirat Motonmori Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun, GCON, has ordered the release of the detained Nnamdi Kanu and repatriate him to Kenya.

    “The council wishes to state that the media report is false and figment of imagination of the writer, as there are no court proceedings, decision or judgment where such statements ascribed to His Lordship (the CJN) was made.

    “The council categorically emphasizes that the Hon CJN neither preside over any case of Kanu at the apex court, where jurisdiction issue was argued, nor make any such pronouncement.

    “His Lordship, the Hon CJN never wrote any formal letter to the Kenya Government or Kenya High Commission apologising on the issue of arrest of Nnamdi Kanu and trial.

    “The council urges members of the public to disregard the fake story.”

    Ealier last week, Justice James Omotosho, to whom Kanu’s treason trial has been assigned, scheduled March 21 for the case to begin afresh before his court.

    It was leant that hearing notices have been issued and dispatched to parties.

    It was gathered that the casefile and other necessary documents have since been transferred to Justice Omotosho’s court, paving the way for the issuance of the hearing notices.

    Barring any unforeseen circumstances, Kanu is expected to be re-arraigned on the remaining seven counts in the treason charge preferred against him by the Federal Government.

    The Supreme Court, in a judgment on December 15, 2023 ordered Kanu to submit himself for trial before the Federal High Court, on the remaining seven counts.

    Read Also: Kanu: So long a trial

    The apex court, in the judgment reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal discharging and acquitting Kanu on the case.

    The apex court held that although he was illegally brought back to Nigeria from Kenya when he jumped bail, that development could not have divested the trial court of the jurisdiction to continue his trial.

    Since the Supreme Court’s judgment, no progress was made in the case before Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court as Kanu’s legal team kept asking for adequate time and facilities to prepare for his defence.

    On September 24, 2024 Justice Nyako withdrew from the case after Kanu stood up in court and demanded that she refuse herself from further handling his trial.

    Although the Chief Judge of the Court, Justice John Tsoho rejected Justice Nyako’s withdrawal and ordered her to proceed with the case, Justice Tsoho later changed his mind, and later re-assigned the case to Justice Omotosho.

  • Northern truck drivers protest killing of members, others by IPOB

    Northern truck drivers protest killing of members, others by IPOB

    • •Threaten to withdraw trucks from Southeast 

    Members of the National Union of Road Transport Workers (Heavy Truck), Plateau State Council have protested the attacks on their trucks and killing of their members in the Southeast.

    They alleged that for the past eight years, truck drivers from the North have been killed, and had their trucks destroyed or burnt while transporting goods to the Southeast.

    Read Also: Six die in Enugu-Onitsha Expressway truck accident

    Addressing reporters at the Laranto Heavy Truck Office, Jos yesterday, the drivers threatened to withdraw their trucks and stop drivers from delivering goods to the Southeast if the matter was not addressed.

     The State Coordinator, Heavy Truck Plateau Council,  Alhaji Janedu Ahamad Zaki, lamented the frequency and severity of the attacks, saying over 50 drivers have been killed, many still missing, and hundreds of trucks burned, damaged, or taken away from drivers.

    He said: “It is with a heavy heart that we address you on the continued killing of our;members, destruction, and burning of our trucks by gunmen suspected to be members of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) in the southeast of Nigeria.’’

  • IPOB takes battle against proscription to Supreme Court

    IPOB takes battle against proscription to Supreme Court

    • Seeks reversal of Appeal Court’s decision
    • Group’s lawyer says ‘nation of 70m can’t be terrorists’
    • Stop begging for my release, I committed no crime, Nnamdi Kanu insists

    The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has approached the Supreme Court to challenge the January 30, 2025  judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja which affirmed its designation as a terrorist group and subsequent proscription by the Federal Government.

    The detained IPOB leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu has also reiterated his innocence, saying nobody should beg for him.

    The group filed a five-ground notice of appeal to challenge the January 30, 2025  judgment on Friday, February 7 through its lawyer, Aloy Ejimakor.

    The suit is marked SC/CA/A/214/2018 and has the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) as the sole respondent.

    The group claims that its proscription is a violation of constitutional provisions, particularly the right to a fair hearing, as enshrined in Section 36 of the Constitution.

    It faults the Court of Appeal’s judgement, arguing that the lower court erred in law in upholding an ex parte order that led to its designation as a terrorist organization, without affording it the opportunity to be heard.

    The Appeal Court, according to IPOB, misinterpreted the Constitution by prioritising national security concerns over its right to fair hearing, adding that the proceedings leading to its proscription failed to meet the standard of proof required in criminal cases because allegations of terrorism required proof beyond reasonable doubt.

    Besides, IPOB is also contending that its classification as a terrorist group unfairly subjects its members, who are primarily of Igbo ethnic origin, to discrimination contrary to Section 42 of the Constitution and says the Court of Appeal wrongly equated proceedings before a “judge in chambers” with an ex parte hearing, thereby denying IPOB the right to present its case.

    It also says the Court of Appeal exceeded its jurisdiction by effectively declaring a “state of emergency,” a power constitutionally reserved for the President under Section 305 of the Constitution.

    Citing the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which it claimed guarantees the right to self-determination, IPOB argues that its agitation for the state of Biafra falls within the legal boundaries of international human rights law. 

    The Court of Appeal had, in a unanimous of a three-member panel on January 30 judgment upheld the argument by Federal Government’s counsel , Oyin Koleosho, that the state acted lawfully in proscribing IPOB, whose activities, it claimed, threatened the nation’s continued existence and the security of citizens.

    In the lead judgment, Justice Hamma Barka resolved all the issues raised for determination against the appellant – IPOB.

    He consequently declared the appeal unmeritorious and dismissed it.

    He faulted the claim by the appellant (IPOB), represented by Chukwuma Machukwu Umeh (SAN), that the procedure adopted by the Federal Government in proscribing the group was flawed.

    Justice Barka held that the government fully complied with the provisions of the relevant laws, particularly Section 2 (1) of the Terrorism (Prevention) Act by adopting the ex-parte proceedings.

    “Such ex-parte proceedings, unless tainted, do not constitute any breach of the right to a fair hearing of parties before the court,” he said.

    Justice Barka adopted the position of the Supreme Court in the case of Dokubo Asari against the Federal Republic of Nigeria to the effect that where national security is threatened or there is the likelihood of it being threatened, human rights or individual rights or those responsible take a second place.

    He added: “Human rights or individual rights must be suspended until national security can be protected or well taken care of. This is not anything new. 

    “The corporate existence of Nigeria as a united, harmonious, indivisible and indissoluble sovereign nation is certainly greater than any citizen’s liberty or rights.

    “While the security of this nation is in jeopardy, and it survives in pieces rather than in peace, individual’s liberty or rights cannot exist.”

    Justice Barka said while the claim by the appellant’s lawyer that the founders of the group had good ideas to achieve could be possible, there is no doubt that IPOB, based on its activities, was infiltrated by hoodlums, operating and surviving on mayhem, which is worrisome and quite evident to all well -meaning Nigerians.

    Read Also: IPOB takes battle against proscription to Supreme Court

    He noted that since IPOB became known for perpetrating violence, the Federal Government  could not be blamed for taking the steps it took to proscribe and designate the group as a terrorist organisation.

    The judge said   there was sufficient evidence that former President Muhammadu Buhari gave approval for the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Abubakar Malami (SAN) to apply to the court for the proscription order in compliance with Section 2(1) of the Terrorism (Prevention) Act.

    The IPOB counsel in a post on his Facebook wall yesterday said of the appeal:  “The proscription of IPOB will not stand because it is tantamount to proscribing NDIGBO & their cousins in other parts of Nigeria. A nation of 70 million cannot be terrorists. We’re headed to the Supreme Court.”

    Nnamdi Kanu: No one should  beg for my release; I committed no offence

    In a separate statement yesterday, Ejimakor who said he visited the IPOB leader, Nnamdi Kanu in detention on Friday, quoted him as saying he does not want anyone to beg for his release as he has not committed any offence.

    Kanu was apparently reacting to recent appeals to the government by groups and individuals for his release.

    His words: “During my visitation with Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu yesterday, he made it abundantly clear that while he is deeply appreciative of the efforts and the widespread calls being made by well-meaning individuals and groups to secure his release, he, however, instructed his legal team to issue the following clarifications:

    “The matter of releasing Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is not an act of mercy, pardon, executive clemency or even amnesty. Instead, it should be an act of simply complying with the subsisting Federal High Court judgment that declared his detention as unconstitutional or even the extant international tribunal decisions that separately declared his detention as unlawful. Alternatively, the decision to free him from detention and discontinue his infamous prosecution can be made by simply resorting to the constitutional provisions that empower the Attorney-General of the Federation (on the directives of the President) to discontinue any prosecution.

    “Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is adamant that nobody should plead or beg anybody on his behalf because he has committed no crime. Self-determination which is the real issue that got twisted to suddenly become a high crime is an inalienable right guaranteed under the laws of Nigeria, the United Nations, the United Kingdom and Kenya. Thus, the perverse and unlawful criminalisation of his exercise of this right should not unwittingly be encouraged through some misguided appeals for pardon, clemency or mercy. Thus, releasing Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is not an act of mercy or pardon but an act of abiding by the rule of law.

    “In as much as those calling for his release are sincere, their calls for pardon or clemency may be misconstrued as a green light to the executive branch or even the courts to violate the rule of law by continuing to subject Mazi Nnamdi Kanu to a prosecution or trial that does not comport with the tenets of the Constitution and Nigeria’s treaty obligations.

    “Instead of begging, those desiring his release should emulate the language and tact used by Afenifere, Ohaneze, World Igbo Congress (WIC), ranking members of the National Assembly, American Military Veterans of Igbo Descent (AVID), Ambassadors for Self Determination (based in America), the international community and a host of others who have made it clear that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu deserves to be released because he has committed no offence known to law. If truth be told, it is Nigeria’s executive branch which extraordinarily renditioned Mazi Nnamdi Kanu that should show contrition for resorting to extraordinary rendition which is a State crime under international law and and the common law. If any begging must be done, it should be directed to the Courts to conduct his cases and that of IPOB with the utmost impartiality and adherence to the rule of law, equity and good conscience.

    “Most importantly, Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu sincerely thanks everyone working assiduously towards the restoration of security, tranquillity and good order in his beloved Igboland.”

  • IPOB takes battle against proscription to Supreme Court

    IPOB takes battle against proscription to Supreme Court

    The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has gone before the Supreme Court to challenge the January 30 judgment by the Court of Appeal, Abuja affirming its designation as a terrorist group and proscription by the Federal Government.

    The group filed a five-ground notice of appeal to that effect on February 7 through its lawyer, Aloy Ejimakor. It has the Attorney General of Federation ( AGF) listed as the sole respondent.

    IPOB is contending, among others, that its proscription violated constitutional provisions, particularly the right to fair hearing, as enshrined in Section 36 of the Constitution.

    It faulted the Court of Appeal, arguing that the lower court erred in law in upholding an ex parte order that led to its designation as a terrorist organization, without affording it the opportunity to be heard.

    IPOB stated that the Court of Appeal misinterpreted the Constitution by prioritising national security concerns over its right to a fair hearing.

    The group added that the proceedings leading to its proscription failed to meet the standard of proof required in criminal cases, because allegations of terrorism required proof beyond reasonable doubt.

    IPOB is also contending that its classification as a terrorist group unfairly subjected its members, who are primarily of Igbo ethnic origin, to discrimination contrary to Section 42 of the Constitution.

    It added that the Court of Appeal  wrongly equated proceedings before a “judge in chambers” with an ex parte hearing, thereby denying IPOB the right to present its case.

    IPOB further faulted the Court of Appeal, claiming it exceeded its jurisdiction by effectively declaring a “state of emergency,” a power constitutionally reserved for the President under Section 305 of the Constitution.

    Citing the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which it claimed guarantees the right to self-determination, IPOB argued  that its agitation for the state of Biafra falls within the legal boundaries of international human rights law. 

    The Court of Appeal had, in a unanimous of a three-member panel on January 30 judgment upheld the argument by the  lawyer to the Federal Government, Oyin Koleosho, that the state acted lawfully in proscribing IPOB, whose activities, it held, threatend the nation’s continued existence and the security of citizens.

    In the lead judgment, Justice Hamma Barka resolved all the issues raised for determination against the appellant – IPOB, declared the appeal unmeritorious and dismissed it.

    He faulted the claim by the appellant (IPOB), represented by Chukwuma Machukwu Umeh (SAN), that the procedure adopted by the Fed Govt in proscribing the group was flawed.

    Justice Barka held that the Fed Govt fully complied with the provisions of the relevant laws, particularly section 2 (1) of the Terrorism (Prevention) Act by adopting the ex-parte proceedings.

    He said: “Such ex-parte proceedings, unless tainted, does not constitute any breach of the right to fair hearing of parties before the court.”

    Read Also: Ebonyi Reps member begs Tinubu to free IPOB leader Kanu

    Justice Barka adopted the position of the Supreme Court in the case of Dokubo Asari against the Federal Republic of Nigeria to the effect that where national security is threatened or there is the likelihood of it being threatened, human rights or individual rights or those responsible takes a second place.

    He added: “Human rights or individual rights must be suspended until national security can be protected or well taken care of. This is not anything new. 

    “The corporate existence of Nigeria as a united, harmonious, indivisible and indissoluble sovereign nation is certainly greater than any citizen’s liberty or rights

    “While the security of this nation is in jeopardy, and it survives in pieces rather than in peace, individual’s liberty or rights cannot exist.”

    Justice Barka said while the claim by the appellant’s lawyer that the founders of the group had good ideas to achieve could be possible, there is no doubt that IPOB, based on its activities, was infiltrated by hoodlums, operating and surviving on mayhem, which is worrisome and quite evident to all well meaning Nigerians.

    He noted that since IPOB became known for perpetrating violence, the Fed Govt could not be blamed for taking the steps it took to proscribe and designate the group as a terrorist organisation.

    The judge found that, as against the claim by the appellant, that there were evidence that former President Muhammadu Buhari gave approval for the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Abubakar Malami (SAN) to apply to the court gor the proscription order in compliance with section 2(1) of the Terrorism (Prevention) Act.