By Our Reporter
The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja, on Thursday, has postponed till October 31, further hearing of an appeal filed by the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, contesting the proscription of its organization, as a terrorist group by the Federal Government.
A three-man panel of the court approved the hearing date after it advised the parties to file and exchange all the necessary legal processes in the matter.
The detained leader of the IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu, had earlier applied to be joined as an interested party in the appeal marked: FHC/CA/A/214/2018.
IPOB, through its lawyer, Mr. Ifeanyi Ejiofor, is praying the appellate court to set aside in its entirety, the ruling/final decision of the late former Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Abdul Abdu-Kafarati, which on September 15, 2017, outlawed its activities in Nigeria.
Justice Kafafati prohibited all activities of the group, particularly in the South-east and South-South regions of the country, while forbidding any person or persons from participating in any of the group’s activities.
The Judge further ordered the AGF to ensure that he published the order proscribing IPOB in the official gazette, as well as in two national dailies.
In January 22, 2018, the court dismissed a motion IPOB filed to challenge the legal validity of the proscription order.
IPOB had maintained that the lower court erred in its judgment and evaluation that the organisation was a terrorist group, adding that the court had failed to take account of evidences that point to the contrary.
According to IPOB: “Affidavit evidence placed before the Trial Court shows in clear terms that the Appellant does not possess any form of arms, or weapons in the exercise of their constitutionally guaranteed rights; or have any history of violence or had engaged in any form of killings; the activities of the Appellant are essentially characterized by moving in groups with cardboards and placards in their hands, singing, blowing whistles and flutes, in agitation for self-determination; these compelling facts clearly supported by credible evidence were not evaluated by the Court below in its finding of facts.
With additional reports from the Vanguard