The leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has vowed to challenge the Court of Appeal’s ruling that upheld the proscription of the group and labeled it a terrorist organization.
In a fiery response delivered through his lead counsel, Aloy Ejimakor on Friday, Kanu condemned the judgment, calling it a decision that “will live in infamy.”
The Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, on Thursday, upheld an earlier ruling by the Federal High Court, which granted the Federal Government’s request to proscribe IPOB in 2017. However, Kanu’s legal team has dismissed the ruling as a travesty of justice, vowing to take the fight to Nigeria’s highest court.
Speaking after a routine visit to Kanu in detention, Ejimakor said his client had instructed his legal team to immediately approach the Supreme Court to challenge the ruling.
“For the avoidance of doubt, the Court of Appeal decision will hardly have any prejudicial effects on Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s main case, because the decision is not final, and we are heading to the Supreme Court, which is – by law – the final arbiter,” the statement read.
Ejimakor also warned against labeling Kanu or IPOB as terrorists, stating that any attempt to use the ruling to stigmatize the group or its leader would result in severe legal consequences.
“Any individual or entity that seizes this adverse moment to purvey the libel that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu or IPOB is a terrorist will face epic legal actions that will be prompt, muscular, and scorched-earth in nature,” he declared.
One of the key arguments raised by Kanu’s legal team is that the original 2017 proscription order was obtained through an ex parte application—meaning IPOB was not notified or given an opportunity to defend itself before being declared a terrorist organization.
“The Federal Government obtained the proscription order behind closed doors, in violation of the constitutional right to fair hearing,” Ejimakor argued.
Additionally, Kanu’s lawyers pointed out that the proscription directive was signed by the late Abba Kyari, then Chief of Staff, rather than by former President Muhammadu Buhari, as required by law.
Although the Court of Appeal acknowledged these procedural flaws, it dismissed IPOB’s appeal, ruling that national security concerns override constitutional provisions—a stance Kanu’s legal team finds deeply troubling.
“The Constitution prescribes a process that must be strictly followed before any of its provisions can be suspended for the sake of national security. That process was not followed in this case,” the statement argued.
Beyond the immediate legal battle, Kanu’s team insists that the ruling carries broader implications for the Igbo people and the right to dissent in Nigeria.
“This ruling discriminatorily targets IPOB and, by extension, the Igbo people,” the statement read, questioning whether IPOB’s activities in 2017 truly posed a legitimate national security risk that warranted the flagrant breach of constitutional rights.
With the Supreme Court now set to weigh in on the matter, the case is shaping up to be one of the most consequential legal battles in recent Nigerian history—one that could redefine the balance between national security and constitutional rights.