No reprieve for IPOB

The Abuja Court of Appeal affirmed the 2018 ruling designating IPOB a terrorist organisation, stating the Nigerian government acted lawfully in proscribing the group.

The Court of Appeal in Abuja has affirmed the 18 January 2018 order by Justice Abdu Kafarati of the Federal High Court, Abuja proscribing the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), designating it a terrorist organisation. In the Thursday judgment, the appellate court’s three-member panel unanimously held that the federal government acted lawfully in proscribing the group, whose activities threaten the country’s continued existence and citizens’ security. In the lead judgment, Justice Hamma Barka, resolved all the issues raised for determination against the appellant – IPOB, declared the appeal unmeritorious and dismissed it. The Court found no reason to set aside the federal government’s order. 

Historically, the Southeast and Southwest regions of Nigeria had the lowest levels of violence, according to SBM Intelligence's quarterly chart, produced in collaboration with the EiE Coalition. However, a shift occurred in Q3 2019, with the Southeast surpassing the South-South in violent fatalities and even briefly exceeding the Northcentral region on two occasions.

IPOB's appeal centred on the claim that the ex parte court order proscribing them had been illegally extended for nearly eight years, far beyond the 14-day limit for such temporary legal remedies.  They argued numerous legal violations, including the improper use of a civil order to impose criminal guilt, the lack of a declared state of emergency or any public disorder convincingly attributable to IPOB that could justify the ban, and the fact that the proscription memo was allegedly signed by the late Abba Kyari, Chief of Staff, rather than the legally mandated President or Vice President (specifically, they noted that neither President Buhari nor then-Vice President Osinbajo signed the memo).

While these arguments possess some validity, IPOB's case has been significantly hampered by its association with insecurity in the Southeast.  Internal divisions and power struggles over Nnamdi Kanu's release and Biafran secession have allowed external actors, including security agencies and the public, to define the group's image and activities.  IPOB spokesperson Emma Powerful, in condemning the court's ruling as biased, attempted to emphasise that his faction has publicly distanced itself from the group's more radical elements, whose violent actions against state and non-state actors have negatively impacted the entire movement.

These hardline factions, supported by Simon Ekpa (arrested in Finland in late 2024), operate under splinter groups like the Biafra Liberation Army and the Biafran National Guard but maintain links with the main IPOB group, using the IPOB name to retain support – a tactic Ekpa skillfully employed.  This distancing strategy by the moderate faction has been ineffective and is unlikely to succeed because of these continued links.  The court's judgment casts a dark shadow over IPOB's future for several reasons:  ending the proscription is politically dangerous due to the group's widespread unpopularity; moderate factions have not fully separated from the main group to advocate their ideals peacefully; and the disruptive sit-at-home violence in the region continues, further damaging IPOB's reputation.