We reject IPOB’s tag as terrorist organization – Ohanaeze; Mohammed, Odumakin, others speak
Justice Kafarati is biased – IPOB; Order is illegal – Adegboruwa
THE
Abuja Federal High Court order declaring the Indigenous People of
Biafra, IPOB as a terror group and proscribing its activities, yesterday
elicited mixed reactions in the polity with some leaders pooh-poohing
it and others hailing the move.
One of those who backed the
proscription yesterday, is Second Republic lawmaker, Dr. Junaid
Mohammed, who said the move would help restore peace in the South-East
geo-political zone in particular and the entire country.
However, a host of others, who picked holes in the court order banning IPOB, said the group was not given fair hearing.
The
ban was sequel to an ex-parte motion filed by the Attorney General of
the Federation, Abubakar Malami on September 20, which the Acting Chief
Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Abdul Kafarati, granted same
day.
On March 2, 2017 the Abuja Division of the Federal High
Court, turned down the government’s plea to make IPOB an illegal body.
In a ruling by Justice Binta Nyako, the court struck-out six of the
11-count criminal charge the Federal Government preferred against the
then detained leader of IPOB, Mr. Nnamdi Kanu and three other pro-Biafra
agitators. Also, the court, in a ruling said the fact that IPOB was not
an organisation registered in Nigeria did not make it an illegal
society. “It may be true that IPOB is not registered in Nigeria, but
does that make it an illegal organisation?” the judge queried.
The proscription is in order – Mohammed
Arguing
that the IPOB ban is right, Dr. Junaid Mohammed, said though he does
not believe that the proscription ‘’has brought an end to the agitation
for Biafra, however, it brings some level of peace to the country.”
“What
the Court has done is to further confirm the President’s declaration
and I am happy that government has refused to listen to busy bodies
blackmailing the government to withdraw troops from the South-East. I
support the military presence in the South-East to restore peace because
the zone still remains under Nigeria,” he said.
We reject IPOB tag as terrorist organization – Ohanaeze
The apex Igbo organization, Ohanaeze Ndigbo also faulted the order.
National
Publicity Secretary of the Organization, Prince Uche Achi Okpaga said
the order was hypocritical because the government had already declared
IPOB a terrorist group before approaching the court.
He said: “l
would reluctantly respond to the “terrorisation” of IPOB. It is not
oblivious that Ohanaeze has differed with the IPOB on some issues
including the imbroglio on Anambra election. However, we take exception
to the declaration of IPOB as a terrorist organisation. An unarmed and
harmless organisation cannot in any guise or pretence be correctly
termed a terrorist organisation. Apart from that the Government had
already declared the organisation a terrorist group before approaching
the court, thereby placing the cat before the horse.’’
There was no fair hearing – Okorie
To
the National chairman of the United Progressives Party, UPP, Chief
Chekwas Okorie, the order declaring IPOB as a terrorist group, was not
fair to the separatist organisation because the court did not hear from
the group before it made the declaration.
“But now that the
Attorney General went to court, the court acted so fast. I expected that
the other party would have been given fair hearing.
“However the
government has obtained the order which should be obeyed by the group
and the group could also challenge the order in a higher court. It was
not sufficiently fair but I expect it will be obeyed while it subsists
though they have right to challenge the order in an appellate court.”
IPOB should seek higher court’s pronouncement – Afenifere
The pan-Yoruba socio-political organisation, Afenifere called on IPOB to seek a pronouncement of a higher court.
Afenifere’s
National Publicity Secretary, Mr Yinka Odumakin said: “It is a double
take for the court. A court had earlier pronounced that IPOB is not an
illegal body, now another court of competent jurisdiction has pronounced
its proscription and banning. Maybe the group should go to a higher
court because since we now have two pronouncements of the same court of
competent jurisdiction, they should go to a higher court to pronounce on
the matter.”
Action belated – NBA vice president
Second
Vice President of the Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, Mr. Monday Ubani
said the Nigerian Military and South-East governors were wrong to have
pronounced IPOB a terrorist organization without following due process
because the proscription of any organization as stipulated by law is
through a judicial process.
His words: “My take is that judicial
process has been complied with, though belatedly. The government had
dubbed IPOB a terrorist organization and proscribed it before running to
the court to give it a retroactive effect. There is a problem when you
said you have proscribed an organization and that organization is not
registered in law.
“Our laws stipulate that only a juristic
person can be sued. I believe IPOB is not registered under our laws. So
there is a problem because the court has just proscribed an organization
that is not registered under our laws. If you take a look at the court
order, it says IPOB, whereas there is no entity known as IPOB under our
laws. This is clearly a complex situation.
Justice Kafarati is biased – IPOB
Reacting to the ban, the IPOB said Justice Kafarati was biased and described it as black market order.
IPOB
Media and Publicity Secretary, Comrade Emma Powerful said in statement
that by granting the order proscribing and labelling IPOB an unlawful
terrorist group, the Judge had placed his judicial reputation on the
line by openly siding with evil.
His statement read: “Justice
Kafarati is more concerned about this APC government confirming him as
the substantive Chief Judge of the Federal High Court than his unbiased
dispensation of justice without fear or favour according to his oath of
office.
“We must continue to ask what evidence led Justice
Kafarati to bow to blackmail and pressure from DSS and Aso Rock to grant
this order, when the very brave Justice Binta Nyako ruled in the same
High Court sitting in Abuja that IPOB is not an illegal organization?
“Unarmed
peaceful IPOB should never and cannot be labeled a terrorist
organization when Fulani herdsmen from Buhari’s tribe, with their Hausa
Fulani soldiers in the Nigerian Army are the ones killing IPOB family
members.
“IPOB has never bombed or killed anyone. Our rallies are
the most peaceful with no recorded incident or fracas or lawlessness,
yet Nigeria, along with its judiciary tagged us a terrorist group. We
are not terrorists and can never be because our struggle for Biafra self
determination is our undeniable right under the United Nations and
African Charter which Nigeria is a signatory to.”
Pedro, Adegboruwa speak
Also
speaking, former Solicitor-General of Lagos State, Mr Lawal Pedro, SAN,
said: “The decision and move by the AGF to employ the rule of law in
dealing with the menace is proper and commendable instead of a mere fiat
or proclamation by officials of government that the IPOB’s acts in the
country amount to terrorism and proscribed the group.
“However I
observed that many things are wrong with the order and can easily be
challenged to set it aside. In the first place, is IPOB a juristic
person to be sued and for the court to exercise jurisdiction upon?
Secondly this looks like a final order or judgement granted on a motion
ex-parte. This cannot be right in law. A different procedure should have
been used to achieve the desired result.”
Order illegal — Adegboruwa
Lagos
lawyer, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa said: ‘’Legally speaking, the suit filed,
the order granted and indeed all the proceedings in this case,
constitute a gross abuse of the process of the Court, as the Court has
no jurisdiction to entertain, let alone adjudicate, upon the case. The
suit was not initiated following due process of law, as stated by the
Supreme Court in the locus classicus case of Madukolu v Nkemdilim (1962)
2 SCNLR 341. The suit filed and the orders granted have no foundation
upon which they can stand and be maintained or enforced.
The
supposed defendant in the case is the Indigenous People of Biafra
(IPOB), which is not a registered entity in law. And even if it is
registered, it can only be sued in the name of its incorporated trustees
or indeed its accredited representatives. Furthermore, unlike other
associations like the Nigerian Bar Association, IPOB is not recognized
or mentioned or legitimized in any existing statute.
For a suit
to be competent, there must be proper parties before the court. In this
case, the supposed defendant, IPOB, is a non juristic person, against
which no action can be maintained in any court of law.
This issue
has recently been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Sunkanmi
Dairo & 6 Ors. v. The Registered Trustees of the Anglican Diocese of
Lagos, Appeal Number SC.148/2006, in the judgement delivered on 23rd
June, 2017…I do hereby humbly urge the federal government not to rely on
this nullity to arrest or prosecute any citizen of Nigeria, alleged to
be a member of IPOB. Something cannot be put on nothing and be expected
to stand. It must collapse.’’
Proscription of IPOB not the best response – Mbisiogu
Also
speaking, President of Good Governance Initiative, Mr. Festus Mbisiogu,
said: “The Nigerian government should be very careful the way it is
going about it because they did not start to act on it early. If the
government had nipped Kanu’s activities in the bud, it would not have
resulted in what it is today. Proscribing the group and labelling it a
terrorist organization is not the best way to respond to a problem of
that extent. These guys have many supporters in the country and outside
the country. That shows that government should be careful in the way it
handles the issue so that we don’t have more crises.”
Ex-parte order can’t stand test of constitutionality – Idemili NBA
In like manner, the Idemili, Anambra State branch of the NBA said the order cannot stand the test of constitutionality.
Chairman
of the Bar, Samuel Chukwukelu, said such an action which is
unconstitutional, amounted to giving a dog bad name in order to hang it.
He made these assertions while addressing newsmen yesterday at the Ogidi High Court premises.
Flanked
by former chairmen of the Bar, Maurice Efobi and Ben Okoko, he warned
that NBA would not fold its arms and watch the authorities do things
arbitrarily.
It’s an expected move to quench agitation for restructuring – ECA
On
its part, the Eastern Consultative Assembly, ECA, said the ban was part
of the government’s plan to quench the agitation for the restructuring
of the country.
In a statement entitled: Blood on the Niger,
Season II’’ by its Secretary, Evangelist Elliot Ugochukwu-Uko, the ECA
said: ‘’The long expected attempt by the Nigerian State to embark on
quenching the restructuring gale currently sweeping the land, through
military might, has eventually begun. Everybody in Nigeria was expecting
this, because the government has run out of arguments and also because
it is the only strategy government knows. Nobody is surprised.”
”The
gentle revolution to restructure Nigeria, brilliantly piloted by Mazi
Nnamdi Kanu has become very successful. Restructuring Nigeria has become
inevitable, thanks to Kanu and IPOB. The anger of the opponents of
restructuring towards Kanu is understandable. Kanu has driven Nigeria
closer to restructuring more than anybody else, therefore, lovers and
defenders of t
No comments
Post a Comment