Kanu Objects ‘Further Adjournment’ Of IPOB Proscription Suit

Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Tuesday, ‘strongly’ objected to further adjournments of his suit against the federal government’s proscription of IPOB.

Kanu founded IPOB, which is a pro-Biafra actualisation group. Kanu is currently being detained at the custody of the Department of State Services over alleged running a proscribed group, treason and jumping.

He was in 2021 renditioned from Kenya to Nigeria, which Nigeria’s Appeal Court ruled amounted to extra-ordinary rendition, and ordered his release. However, the FG declined to obey the order.

Kanu’s wish against its further adjournment followed the fixing of Oct 16, 2023 for its hearing at the Appeal Court. Our correspondent reports that the matter had been adjourned many times since 2018 when he filed the suit against the federal.

Barr Aloy Ejimakor, Kanu’s special counsel, stated Kanu’s objection via his X handle.

According to him, “As the appeal filed by #IPOB against its proscription comes up for hearing on 16th October, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu has directed me to publicly convey his strong objections to any further adjournment of the case. It’s bad enough that the case has been hit by several adjournment since 2018.”

The Federal High Court in Abuja had in 2017 given judicial backing to the executive order of former President Muhammadu Buhari proscribing IPOB’s in every part of Nigeria.

The then acting Chief judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Abdu Kafarati, granted the order, declaring that the activities of the group constituted an act of terrorism and illegality.

Kanu however, sued FG for labelling IPOB as a terrorist organisation. In a suit by his special counsel, Barr Aloy Ejimakor, marked E/20/2023, filed at an Enugu State High Court, Kanu sought the court order that self-determination is not a crime and consequently cannot be held on, to arrest, detain and prosecute Kanu and the members of IPOB.

Ejimakor had told newsmen that, “The suit is against any criminal prosecutions of the applicant and members of IPOB on the basis of the said proscription of IPOB and its listing as a terrorist group.

The suit began with originating application brought pursuant to Order II Rules 1 & 2 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009, Section 42 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), Articles 2, 3, 19 & 20 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Right (Ratification and Enforcement) Act and under the jurisdiction of the Court as preserved by Sections 6 and 46 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).”

Our correspondent reports Kanu’s other cases pending in the court and being handled by Ejimakor alone or in conjunction with other lawyers are three cases in Southeast, one at the Court of Appeal (on proscription), one at the African Union, one in UK, two at the UN and one in Kenya.”