A win for IPOB

The Enugu State High Court, on Thursday, declared the proscription of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) by the Southeast Governors’…

The Enugu State High Court, on Thursday, declared the proscription of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) by the Southeast Governors’ Forum as illegal, unconstitutional and null and void. In 2017, the Southeast governors proscribed IPOB’s activities, making the Federal Government classify IPOB as a terrorist organisation. However, IPOB leader Nnamdi Kanu sought the reversal of the proscription in court, saying IPOB was an organisation “composed of citizens of Nigeria from the Igbo and other eastern Nigerian ethnic groups.” Justice Onovo ordered the defendants to pay Kanu ₦8 billion in damages and to apologise to him through newspaper publication.

The Enugu State High Court ruling, grounded in the idea that IPOB represents citizens pursuing self-determination, clashes with the group’s extensive history of militant and terrorist actions, which often involves the use of violence to assert its demands. IPOB’s track record reveals a pattern of violence and intimidation across the Southeast, marked by attacks on educational institutions, medical facilities, public infrastructure, and the harassment of those who resist the group’s sit-at-home orders. Since August 2021, the Monday sit-at-home order has severely impacted the region’s economy and social fabric, leading to business closures, school shutdowns and a surge in criminal activities and insecurity. Despite Aso Rock repeatedly condemning the Monday sit-at-home order and urging IPOB to renounce violence, the group persists in creating an environment of fear and intimidation. The accumulating evidence strongly suggests that IPOB operates as a militant and terrorist entity, employing violence and terror to further its political objectives. Regarding IPOB’s approach to elections in Nigeria, a confrontational and disruptive stance is readily apparent. The group consistently promotes the boycott of elections in the Southeast region, underpinned by its aspiration for secession and the formation of an independent Biafra. IPOB’s argument hinges on the belief that participating in Nigerian elections legitimises a government it considers oppressive and illegitimate. To enforce these election boycotts, IPOB employs coercion and intimidation, targeting individuals and businesses, resorting to threats and violence to discourage voters from participating in the electoral process. The group has further obstructed elections by imposing sit-at-home orders on election days, resulting in low voter turnout and hampering the democratic process in the region. IPOB’s election-related actions have led to a strained relationship with the Nigerian government, frequently culminating in confrontations with security forces. These disruptive activities raise concerns about its impact on the political landscape, governance in the Southeast and the potential erosion of the democratic process in the region. These actions significantly affect the democratic process and political stability in the Southeast region. Despite all these, SBM has had one consistent voice in criticising IPOB’s proscription over the years, arguing that the government’s approach to the group exacerbated and inflamed tensions. As of late 2017 when the proscription happened, IPOB’s engagement tool was sit-at-home orders on Biafra Day (30 May), as well as occasional pro-referendum protests in Southeast states. The regularity of the protests inflamed tensions between IPOB and the military, leading to a crackdown on the group and an invasion of leader Nnamdi Kanu’s family home in Abia, causing his parents’ death. It was not until three years later that the group resorted to violence against the state to get a referendum and secession. The court ruling in IPOB’s favour represents a rebuke to the Nigerian government for its brash approach to handling political and civil dissent. Nigeria has a long list of civil movements forced underground and into violence because of its preference for repressive tactics on issues that need political compromise and settlement. The federal government’s impatience in addressing the Biafra issue was aided by Southeast governors who, lacking political support, failed to anticipate the consequences of their actions. IPOB’s recent victory presents a challenging path ahead, beginning with obtaining the compensation funds and seeking court reversal of the federal government’s proscription decree. If the latter occurs, it could significantly improve the security situation in the Southeast and drastically reduce the group’s famed hostilities. Consequently, it becomes imperative for the federal government to deal with IPOB diplomatically and carefully to avoid escalating an already dire situation.