Federal High Court ruling on IPOB descends into confusion as
experts argue
picture by vanguardngr.com
- The proscribing of the IPOB for their agitation has led to confusion and disagreements among legal experts - Many of the legal experts and SANs present debated the court's judgement and the rule of law on such matters - While some believed it was the right thing to do, others disagreed with the judgement On Thursday, September 21, Federal High Court, Abuja passed a ruling proscribing the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) group, which also classified the Biafra agitators
as a terrorist organisation.
On Wednesday, September 20, the Attorney General of the
Federation (AGF) and minister of justice, Abubakar Malami (SAN), had on behalf
of the federal government, obtained an interim order proscribing IPOB. The
order was granted by the acting chief judge of the Federal High Court, Justice
Abdu Kafarati, in chambers. Justice Kafarati said: “That an order, declaring
that the activities of the respondent IPOB in any part of Nigeria, especially
in the southeast and south-south regions of Nigeria, amount to acts of
terrorism and illegality, is granted.”
However, according to Punch, there were some disagreements
among legal experts over the matter. The immediate past Lagos state
solicitor-general, Lawal Pedro (SAN) and a human rights advocacy group, Access
to Justice's activist lawyer, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, faulted the order of Justice
Kafarati, saying it had no legal precedent. Two professors of Law, who are also
SANs, Yemi Akinseye-George and Fidelis Oditah and other SANs - Yusuf Ali and
Tayo Oyetibo - argued that the order of the court was valid and backed by law
and fact. However, 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 jeopardize it.
READ ALSO: Biafra: S/East agitators who attacked northerners
are misguided elements - Northern elders He said: “I observe that many things
are wrong with the order and can easily be challenged, so as 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
judgment granted on a motion ex parte. This cannot be right in law. A different
procedure should have been used to achieve the desired result. “Thirdly, the
order or judgment is in breach of the fundamental right of the named respondent
(assuming it is a juristic person) to fair hearing. It is, therefore,
unconstitutional null and void. Read More at: https://danelite.blogspot.com.ng/
However, according to Punch, there were some disagreements
among legal experts over the matter. The immediate past Lagos state
solicitor-general, Lawal Pedro (SAN) and a human rights advocacy group, Access
to Justice's activist lawyer, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, faulted the order of Justice
Kafarati, saying it had no legal precedent. Two professors of Law, who are also
SANs, Yemi Akinseye-George and Fidelis Oditah and other SANs - Yusuf Ali and
Tayo Oyetibo - argued that the order of the court was valid and backed by law
and fact. However, 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 jeopardize it. READ ALSO: Biafra: S/East agitators who attacked
northerners are misguided elements - Northern elders He said: “I observe that
many things are wrong with the order and can easily be challenged, so as 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 judgment granted on a motion ex parte. This cannot be right in law. A
different procedure should have been used to achieve the desired result.
“Thirdly, the order or judgment is in breach of the fundamental right of the
named respondent (assuming it is a juristic person) to fair hearing. It is,
therefore, unconstitutional null and void. Read More at: https://danelite.blogspot.com.ng/
“Lastly, the main relief is a declaratory order or judgment
which should not be granted vide a motion either on notice or ex parte. “It is
my advice that the AGF should review its strategy on the subject and may
consider a proper and better legal team to advise and handle this important and
sensitive case.” The human rights advocacy group, Access to Justice, in a
statement by its deputy director, Dr Adenike Aiyedun, also said the order was
against the principle of fair hearing. 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. “It is disturbing
because the ruling – which is a determinative, and conclusive statement on the
legality of the Indigenous People of Biafra, as far as this court goes – was
arrived at ex parte, when the other side – IPOB – was not given an opportunity
at all to be heard or to oppose the application. It is at odds with basic
tenets of justice and fairness. “The ruling of the Federal High Court does not
stand up to respectable scrutiny and we fear that it would further damage
public trust in the Nigerian judiciary.” Read More at: https://danelite.blogspot.com.ng/
Also, activist lawyer, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, described the
federal government’s application and the order made by the court as an abuse of
court process. READ ALSO: Why Kanu's Radio Biafra is still operational in
London - British government 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. “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, 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 recognised or mentioned or legitimised 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 no-juristic person against which no
action can be maintained in any court of law.” Yemi Akinseye-George (SAN), a
professor of law, 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. READ
ALSO: Ask Senator Abaribe, others if you are looking for Nnamdi Kanu -
Presidency He said: “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. “Again, we can take
precedent from the Boko Haram case; a similar order was obtained against Boko Haram
to declare it a terrorist organisation and the order took effect; so, there is
precedent.
“In the first place,
terrorist organisations cannot be registered by law, so, you cannot say because
they are not registered, they cannot be proscribed.” Meanwhile, NAIJ.com
earlier reported that a coalition has commended the federal government, the
Nigerian army and the chief of justice of the Federal High Court Abdul Kafarati
over the proscription of the IPOB as a terrorist group. PAY ATTENTION: Watch
more videos on NAIJ.com TV The coalition said the order of the Federal High
Court against the IPOB effectively designated any activity carried by the group
as act of terrorism. Watch this NAIJ.com video as Nnamdi Kanu fathers speaks
about his son and IPOB: Read More at: https://danelite.blogspot.com.ng/
No comments:
Post a Comment