The legal team of the detained Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu has faulted the recent Appeal Court ruling affirming the Federal Government’s proscription of IPOB and vows to appeal against it at the Supreme Court.
The team, led by Aloy Ejimakor, argued that the decision could not stand because it “elevated denial of fair hearing to a state where it receives judicial blessing,” calling it absurd and perverse.
For those who are in doubt, the Court of Appeal’s decision will also not have any prejudicial effects on Kanu’s main case. Ejimakor said the decision would be resisted vigorously within the parameters of the municipal and international law. He argued that the Federal High Court’s proscription order was obtained through an ex parte application filed by the Federal Government.
According to him, it ought to be through a hearing notice by a Judge-in-chambers, as the pertinent law prescribed, recalling that the team had argued that the proscription proceedings offended the hallowed doctrine of fair hearing enshrined in the Constitution.
Ejimakor maintained that IPOB was neither put on notice nor heard before the order of proscription ensued.
“In addition to these, we argued that the proscription directive issued to the Attorney-General of the Federation was signed by the late Abba Kyari, and not by former President Muhammadu Buhari, as the relevant law requires.
“The Court of Appeal acknowledged these laxities but it still went ahead to dismiss our appeal on the quaint premise that national security is an exception to the provisions of the constitution,” he pointed out. He said the constitution laid down a process to be strictly followed before any part of its provision is suspended for the sake of national security.
“But in this case, this process was not followed at all. There are also other myriad and varied legal options that can be triggered against anybody or any entity that might attempt to take undue advantage of the Court of Appeal judgment to wrought legal and constitutional injury on Mazi Kanu and Ndigbo.
“For the time being, it is legally safer and wiser for all and sundry to resist the dangerous temptation of calling Mazi Kanu a terrorist until he is either convicted as one (which is a tall order) or until the Supreme Court finally decides it against him (which is highly unlikely).
“In plain terms, the jury is still out on the issue of whether the IPOB and Mazi Kanu are terrorists or not. Thus, anybody or entity that seizes the adverse moment to purvey the libel that Mazi Kanu/IPOB is a terrorist will be countervailed by epic legal action,” Ejimakor warned.
