Profs, SANs and Others Disagree on Court Order Banning IPOB

 

Many legal luminaries have differed on the ban by a court in Abuja over the activities of the Indigenous People of Biafra, which also classified the agitators as a terrorist organisation.

 

The Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Abubakar Malami (SAN), had, on Wednesday, on behalf of the Federal Government, obtained an interim order proscribing IPOB and declaring the secessionist group as a terrorist organisation.

 

The order was granted by the acting Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Abdu Kafarati, in chambers.

 

The judge held, “That an order, declaring that the activities of the respondent (Indigenous People of Biafra) in any part of Nigeria, especially in the South-East and South-South regions of Nigeria, amount to acts of terrorism and illegality, is granted.”

 

Here are some of Nigeria's legal authorities who have different opinions on the ban and what they think should have been done according to this report by Punch:

 

The immediate past Lagos State Solicitor-General, Mr. Lawal Pedro (SAN); a human rights advocacy group, Access to Justice; activist lawyer, Mr. Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, and IPOB faulted the order of Justice Kafarati, saying it had no legal precedent.

 

But two professors of Law, who are also Senior Advocates of Nigeria, Yemi Akinseye-George and Fidelis Oditah; other SANs – Yusuf Ali and Tayo Oyetibo – and the Special Assistant to the President on Prosecution, Mr. Okoi Obono-Obla, argued that the order of the court was valid and backed by law and fact.

 

In a statement on Thursday, Pedro wondered whether IPOB was a juristic person that could be sued.

 

He also observed that though the order proscribing IPOB was granted pursuant to an ex parte application, the pronouncement of the court sounded rather declaratory and final.

 

Pedro, who described the issue of IPOB agitation as important, advised the AGF to assemble a competent team to handle the case in order not to jeopardise it.

 

Pedro stated, “I observe that many things are wrong with the order and can easily be challenged, so as to set it aside.

 

Pedro, however, said that the order, having been made by a competent court of law, had legal weight and remained binding until it was set aside.

 

Also, a human rights advocacy group, Access to Justice, in a statement by its Deputy Director, Dr. Adenike Aiyedun, shared Pedro’s views, arguing that the order was against the principle of fair hearing.

 

On its part, A2J also raised concern as to whether the constitutional principle of fair hearing was respected in the handling of the case.

 

The group said, “The court’s ruling is hard to rationalise and it will send many scratching their heads as well as fan the flames of an already volatile political situation.

 

In a similar vein, activist lawyer, Mr. Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, described the Federal Government’s application and the order made by the court as an abuse of court process.

 

Adegboruwa argued that the court order had no foundation in law because IPOB, not being a registered organisation, was not juristic and could not be sued.

 

He added, “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.

 

But a professor of Law, Yemi Akinseye-George (SAN), while admitting that an unregistered organisation was not juristic and could not be sued, recalled that a precedent had been set by the court in the case of Boko Haram, which was not registered, yet proscribed.

 

Akinseye-George stated, “You cannot sue an unregistered organisation. I’ve not seen the ruling but if the organisation is not registered, but Nnamdi Kanu was joined as one of the defendants, the application is valid.

 

Another professor of Law, Fidelis Oditah (SAN), affirmed that though he did not know the status of IPOB, only a juristic organisation could be sued.

 

He explained that if IPOB was not a juristic person, the Federal Government would still have been able to proscribe it without going to court but by the President, obtaining power from the legislature to declare the group illegal.

 

Oditah added, “I don’t know about the status of IPOB, whether it is a juristic or non-juristic person. Assuming it is a non-juristic person, then, there is no person capable of being the subject of legal rights or obligations. That is the way that a lawyer will look at it. But that is not a complete answer because there are many amorphous organisations that can be clamped down upon notwithstanding that they have no legal existence.

 

Aligning with the opinions of the dons, a SAN, Mallam Yusuf Ali, argued that IPOB could be proscribed in Nigeria even when the body was not registered in Nigeria.

 

He said a group existing “as a fact”, with its activities affecting the lives of other persons, could be proscribed even when such body was not registered.

 

He said, “IPOB is not registered but it is mobilising Nigerians against other Nigerians.

 

Ali recalled that although the Ibrahim Zakzaky-led Islamic Movement of Nigeria (also known as Shi’ites) was not a registered body in Nigeria, the group was proscribed by the Kaduna State Government after its members clashed with the Army in December 2015.

 

He said, “In law, it is not all the time that a non-registered body cannot be subjected to a legal action. The question is does the body have the ability to affect the lives of other people?

 

Another senior advocate, Mr. Tayo Oyetibo, stated that the proscription of IPOB was legal because of its activities, despite the fact that the group was not registered under the law.

 

Oyetibo said, “The assertion that the group is not registered cannot be a correct reason for attacking the proscription. This is because if a body, even in the guise of a masquerade, goes out to infringe on peoples’ rights, you can drag the masquerader in the form it is and deal with it.

 

But the Special Assistant to the President on Prosecutions, Mr. Okoi Obono-Obla, on Thursday, defended the order made by the Federal High Court in Abuja proscribing IPOB.

 

Obono-Obla said in a statement that IPOB was an unlawful society within the contemplation of Section 62 (2) of the Criminal Code, adding that the proscription order did not infringe on the members’ right to freedom of association.

 

According to the presidential aide, the Federal Government’s application requesting the proscription order was filed under the Terrorism (Prevention) Act, and not based on the principles applicable to civil proceedings.

 

The presidential aide stated, “It beats me as to how the argument put forward by Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, an experienced and tested legal practitioner of many years standing, could use the principles of law designed and applicable to civil proceedings to argue that the order of proscription of IPOB is faulty because the body is not registered in Nigeria and therefore cannot sue or be sued!

 

He also said in another statement that IPOB remained constitutionally proscribed as the Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2013, under which the court order was issued, did not make registration of a group in Nigeria a precondition for proscribing such body.

 

“It follows that the proscription order granted by Justice Kafarati is lawful, constitutional and proper.”