In a landmark judgment delivered on October 26, 2023, the Enugu State High Court declared that the 2017 proscription of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) by the Southeast Governors’ Forum was unconstitutional, invalid, and devoid of legal foundation.
The ruling, which resurfaced into public discussion following new developments in Abuja, reaffirmed that the actions of the governors and the subsequent classification of IPOB as a terrorist organisation by the Federal Government violated several core constitutional and human rights protections.
Background of the Case
The proscription originated from a 2017 resolution spearheaded by then–Ebonyi State Governor, David Umahi, acting on behalf of the Southeast Governors’ Forum. Days later, the Federal Government, relying on that resolution, designated IPOB as a terrorist group.
Contesting this decision, IPOB leader Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, through his special counsel Aloy Ejimakor, instituted legal action. The suit argued that IPOB is a registered association whose members are entitled to the constitutional right to freedom of association and political expression, including the right to self-determination.
The respondents included the Southeast Governors’ Forum and the Federal Government.
Reliefs Sought
Kanu requested several declarations and orders, including:
A ruling that the proscription violated Section 42 of the 1999 Constitution and multiple articles of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
A declaration affirming that self-determination is not a criminal offence.
A directive compelling the respondents to issue public apologies in national newspapers.
₦8 billion in damages for alleged violations of his fundamental rights.
Court’s Findings
Presiding Judge Justice A. O. Onovo held that:
The African Charter, as domesticated in Nigerian law, protects the right to self-determination.
The proscription by the governors lacked constitutional backing and therefore stood null and void.
The respondents must pay ₦8 billion in compensation and publish formal apologies.
However, the court declined jurisdiction on issues relating to Kanu’s ongoing criminal trial, noting that the matter was already before the Supreme Court.
Counsel to Kanu praised the decision, describing it as “a restoration of judicial hope since 2017.”
Contrasting Development in Abuja
In a separate ruling delivered on Wednesday, Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, reached a contrasting conclusion while deciding an aspect of Kanu’s terrorism trial.
Justice Omotosho held that Kanu’s own recorded statements and broadcasts demonstrated his leadership of what the court referred to as a proscribed terrorist organisation—a reference to IPOB and the Eastern Security Network (ESN), both designated in 2017 by federal authorities.
He consequently convicted Kanu on count three of the terrorism charges
