I. INTRODUCTION: THE ORDER THAT CHANGED EVERYTHING
On September 20, 2017, Justice Abdul Kafarati of the Federal High Court in Abuja issued an ex parte order proscribing the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) as a terrorist organization, effectively declaring the group illegal and subjecting its members to prosecution under Nigeria's terrorism laws.¹ The order, which was granted in the absence of IPOB representatives and without the group having an opportunity to present its case, marked a significant escalation in the government's response to the organization and raised fundamental questions about due process, the quality of evidence presented, and whether the legal process was being used appropriately or expediently to achieve political objectives.
The proscription order came at a time when tensions between the Nigerian government and IPOB were escalating, with the group's leader, Nnamdi Kanu, having been detained since 2015, and with security operations in the Southeast intensifying.² The fact that the order was granted ex parte, meaning that IPOB was not present to contest the application, that it was issued without a full hearing, and that it was based on evidence that IPOB had no opportunity to challenge, meant that the proscription raised questions not only about the legal process but also about the fairness and legitimacy of the designation.
The proscription also had immediate and far-reaching consequences for IPOB members, supporters, and the broader Southeast region, where the designation as a terrorist organization meant that anyone associated with IPOB could face severe legal penalties, including lengthy prison sentences. The fact that the designation was made without IPOB having an opportunity to defend itself, that it was based on evidence that has not been publicly scrutinized, and that it has been used to justify security operations and arrests, means that the proscription represents not merely a legal designation but a fundamental question about the relationship between law, politics, and justice in Nigeria.
This article examines the IPOB proscription not merely as a legal event, but as a window into Nigeria's legal system, its approach to security challenges, and its commitment to due process and fair hearing. It asks not just what happened on September 20, 2017, but why the order was granted ex parte, what evidence was presented, whether the process was fair, and what the implications are for the rule of law and democratic governance in Nigeria. The proscription raises fundamental questions about the relationship between security and rights, the role of the judiciary in political disputes, and the possibility of building a legal system that serves justice rather than expediency.
II. THE LEGAL PROCESS: EX PARTE ORDERS AND DUE PROCESS
The Ex Parte Application: When One Side Speaks
The proscription of IPOB was obtained through an ex parte application, a legal procedure that allows a court to grant an order without the presence or representation of the opposing party.³ According to legal principles, ex parte orders are typically granted in urgent situations where delay would cause irreparable harm, where notice to the opposing party would defeat the purpose of the application, or where there are exceptional circumstances that justify proceeding without both parties present. The fact that the government sought an ex parte order to proscribe IPOB, that the court granted it, and that IPOB was not present to contest the application, means that the proscription was obtained through a process that did not allow for adversarial testing of the evidence or arguments presented.
The use of an ex parte procedure for proscribing an organization raises questions about whether the circumstances justified proceeding without IPOB's presence. According to legal experts, ex parte orders should be exceptional and temporary, with the affected party having the right to challenge the order once it is made aware of it.⁴ The fact that the proscription order was granted ex parte, that it was not temporary but permanent in effect, and that it was based on evidence that IPOB had no opportunity to challenge, means that the process may not have met the standards typically required for such significant legal actions.
The ex parte nature of the order also raises questions about the evidence that was presented to the court, where the government's application and supporting materials were not subject to cross-examination or challenge by IPOB. The fact that the evidence was presented in the absence of IPOB, that it was not tested through adversarial proceedings, and that IPOB had no opportunity to present counter-evidence or arguments, means that the court's decision was based on one-sided submissions that have not been subjected to the scrutiny that is typically required in legal proceedings.
The Evidence: What Was Presented to the Court?
The question of what evidence was presented to support the proscription application is central to understanding whether the order was based on sufficient grounds or whether it was granted without adequate justification. According to legal principles, proscribing an organization as a terrorist group requires evidence that the organization engages in or supports terrorist activities, that it poses a threat to national security, and that proscription is necessary and proportionate.⁵ The fact that the evidence presented to the court has not been made public, that it was not subject to adversarial testing, and that IPOB had no opportunity to challenge it, means that the quality and sufficiency of the evidence remain unclear.
The government's application reportedly cited various activities and statements attributed to IPOB, including alleged threats, protests, and activities that the government characterized as terrorist in nature.⁶ However, the fact that these allegations were not tested through adversarial proceedings, that IPOB had no opportunity to respond to them, and that the evidence has not been independently verified, means that the basis for the proscription remains contested and that questions about the sufficiency and quality of the evidence persist.
The lack of transparency about the evidence also raises questions about the government's approach to the proscription, where the decision to proceed ex parte and the failure to make the evidence public suggest that the government may have been concerned about the strength of its case or about IPOB's ability to challenge the evidence effectively. The fact that the evidence has not been made public, that it was not subject to adversarial testing, and that IPOB continues to dispute the allegations, means that the proscription remains controversial and that questions about its legal and factual basis persist.
III. THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK: TERRORISM LAWS AND PROSCRIPTION POWERS
The Terrorism Prevention Act: Powers and Procedures
The legal framework for proscribing organizations in Nigeria is provided by the Terrorism Prevention Act, which grants the government the power to designate organizations as terrorist groups and to prosecute their members under terrorism laws.⁷ According to the Act, the government can apply to a court for an order proscribing an organization if evidence indicates that the organization is involved in terrorist activities, that it poses a threat to national security, or that proscription is necessary to prevent terrorist acts. The fact that the Act provides for proscription, that it sets out procedures for obtaining proscription orders, and that it grants the government significant powers, means that the legal framework exists for the type of action that was taken against IPOB.
However, the Act also requires that proscription orders be based on sufficient evidence, that they be necessary and proportionate, and that they comply with constitutional guarantees of due process and fair hearing.⁸ The fact that the proscription of IPOB was obtained ex parte, that the evidence was not subject to adversarial testing, and that IPOB had no opportunity to challenge the application, raises questions about whether the process complied with these requirements and whether the proscription meets the standards set out in the Act.
The Act also provides for challenges to proscription orders, where affected organizations can apply to have orders set aside or varied if they can show that the order was improperly granted, that the evidence was insufficient, or that the process was unfair.⁹ The fact that IPOB has reportedly challenged the proscription order, that these challenges have been made, and that the outcomes of these challenges are not always clear, means that the legal process surrounding the proscription is ongoing and that questions about its validity and fairness remain.
Constitutional Guarantees: Due Process and Fair Hearing
The Nigerian Constitution guarantees the right to fair hearing, which includes the right to be heard, the right to present evidence, the right to challenge evidence presented against one, and the right to legal representation.¹⁰ The fact that the proscription order was granted ex parte, that IPOB was not present to defend itself, and that the evidence was not subject to adversarial testing, raises questions about whether the process complied with these constitutional guarantees and whether IPOB's right to fair hearing was respected.
The right to fair hearing is particularly important in cases involving significant consequences, such as proscription orders that can result in criminal prosecution and lengthy prison sentences. The fact that the proscription of IPOB has such serious consequences, that it was obtained through a process that did not allow IPOB to defend itself, and that it was based on evidence that has not been publicly scrutinized, means that questions about compliance with constitutional guarantees persist and that the fairness of the process remains contested.
The constitutional guarantees also require that legal processes be transparent, that decisions be based on evidence, and that affected parties have the opportunity to challenge decisions that affect them. The fact that the proscription process was not transparent, that the evidence has not been made public, and that IPOB's ability to challenge the order has been limited, means that questions about compliance with constitutional requirements persist and that the legitimacy of the proscription remains contested.
IV. THE POLITICAL CONTEXT: TIMING AND MOTIVATIONS
The Timing: Escalating Tensions and Security Operations
The proscription order came at a time when tensions between the Nigerian government and IPOB were escalating, with security operations in the Southeast intensifying, with IPOB's leader Nnamdi Kanu in detention, and with the group's activities and statements becoming more prominent.¹¹ The fact that the proscription was sought at this particular time, that it came during a period of heightened tensions, and that it followed increased security operations, raises questions about whether the timing was driven by legal necessity or by political considerations related to the government's response to IPOB's activities.
The timing of the proscription also raises questions about whether it was part of a broader strategy to suppress IPOB's activities, to justify security operations, or to respond to political pressure. The fact that the proscription came during a period of escalating tensions, that it was obtained through an ex parte process that did not allow IPOB to defend itself, and that it has been used to justify security operations and arrests, suggests that the timing may have been influenced by factors beyond purely legal considerations.
The timing also raises questions about whether the government had sufficient evidence to support the proscription at the time it was sought, or whether the decision to proceed was driven by urgency related to security concerns rather than by the strength of the legal case. The fact that the evidence has not been made public, that it was not subject to adversarial testing, and that questions about its sufficiency persist, means that the timing of the proscription and the motivations behind it remain subjects of debate.
The Political Dimension: Security, Rights, and Governance
The proscription of IPOB also raises broader questions about the relationship between security and rights, where the government's responsibility to maintain security must be balanced with its obligation to protect fundamental rights, including the right to freedom of association, the right to fair hearing, and the right to due process.¹² The fact that the proscription was obtained through a process that did not allow IPOB to defend itself, that it has been used to justify security operations, and that it has had significant consequences for IPOB members and supporters, means that the proscription represents a test of how Nigeria balances security concerns with respect for fundamental rights.
The political dimension also extends to questions about the role of the judiciary in political disputes, where courts are called upon to make decisions that have significant political implications. The fact that the proscription order was granted by a court, that it was based on a government application, and that it has been used to justify political and security actions, raises questions about whether the judiciary is being used appropriately to resolve political disputes or whether legal processes are being used to achieve political objectives.
The political dimension also raises questions about the legitimacy of the proscription, where the process through which it was obtained, the evidence on which it was based, and the consequences it has had, all affect whether the designation is seen as legitimate by those affected and by the broader public. The fact that the proscription remains contested, that it has been challenged, and that questions about its fairness and legitimacy persist, means that the political implications of the proscription continue to be debated and that its effectiveness in achieving the government's objectives remains uncertain.
V. THE CHALLENGES: LEGAL ACTIONS AND OUTCOMES
IPOB's Response: Challenging the Proscription
Since the proscription order was issued, IPOB has challenged it through multiple legal actions in different courts, resulting in conflicting judicial decisions that highlight the complexity and ongoing nature of the legal dispute.¹³ The challenges have produced two major court decisions with opposite outcomes: one declaring the proscription unconstitutional, and another upholding it, creating a legal situation where the status of the proscription remains contested and uncertain.
The Enugu High Court Ruling: A Declaration of Unconstitutionality
In October 2023, the Enugu State High Court delivered a significant ruling that declared the proscription and designation of IPOB as a terrorist organization unconstitutional and illegal.¹⁴ Justice A. O. Onovo, presiding over the case, ruled that the application of the Terrorism Prevention Act and the executive actions leading to IPOB's proscription were unconstitutional. The court found that the proscription violated constitutional provisions and ordered the Federal Government and South-East Governors Forum to pay N8 billion in damages to IPOB leader Nnamdi Kanu and to issue a public apology. This ruling represented a major legal victory for IPOB and a direct challenge to the validity of the 2017 proscription order.
The Enugu High Court's decision was significant not only because it declared the proscription unconstitutional but also because it awarded substantial damages and required a public apology, indicating that the court found the proscription to have caused significant harm. The fact that a state high court could declare a federal proscription order unconstitutional, and that it could order the federal government to pay damages, raised questions about the hierarchy of courts and the binding nature of different judicial decisions in Nigeria's legal system.
The Court of Appeal Ruling: Upholding the Proscription
However, in January 2025, the Court of Appeal in Abuja delivered a contradictory ruling that upheld the proscription, affirming the Federal Government's action as lawful.¹⁵ The appellate court, led by Justice Hamma Barka, ruled unanimously that IPOB's activities posed a threat to Nigeria's continued existence and the security of its citizens, and that the government's proscription was therefore justified. The court dismissed IPOB's appeal as unmeritorious, effectively reversing the legal momentum that had been created by the Enugu High Court's ruling.
The Court of Appeal's decision was significant because it represented a higher court's affirmation of the proscription, and because it directly contradicted the Enugu High Court's finding that the proscription was unconstitutional. The fact that two courts could reach opposite conclusions about the same legal action raised fundamental questions about the consistency of judicial interpretation, the hierarchy of courts, and the finality of legal decisions in Nigeria's judicial system.
The Legal Contradiction: Conflicting Decisions and Ongoing Uncertainty
The existence of two conflicting court decisions—one declaring the proscription unconstitutional and another upholding it—has created a legal situation where the status of the proscription remains uncertain and contested.¹⁶ The Enugu High Court's ruling, while significant, may not have the same binding authority as the Court of Appeal's decision, given the hierarchy of courts in Nigeria's legal system. However, the fact that a court has declared the proscription unconstitutional, and that it has ordered damages and a public apology, means that the legal validity of the proscription continues to be questioned, regardless of the Court of Appeal's subsequent ruling.
The conflicting decisions also raise questions about which court has the authority to determine the validity of the proscription, and about how such conflicts should be resolved. The fact that IPOB has reportedly taken the case to the Supreme Court suggests that the legal dispute is far from resolved, and that the final determination of the proscription's validity may require a decision from Nigeria's highest court.¹⁷ Until the Supreme Court rules on the matter, the legal status of the proscription will remain contested, with different courts having reached different conclusions about its validity and constitutionality.
The challenges also highlight the ongoing nature of the legal dispute, where the proscription order, while having immediate effect and being used to justify security operations and arrests, is subject to legal challenge and potential reversal. The fact that the proscription has been challenged, that these challenges have produced conflicting results, and that the final outcome remains uncertain, means that the legal status of IPOB and the validity of the proscription continue to be subjects of legal dispute that may take years to resolve.
The Outcomes: What Has Happened Since 2017?
Since the proscription order was issued in 2017, it has been used to justify various actions against IPOB members and supporters, including arrests, prosecutions, and security operations.¹⁴ The fact that the proscription has been used in this way, that it has resulted in legal actions against individuals, and that these actions have had significant consequences, means that the proscription has had real and lasting effects regardless of whether it was properly obtained or whether it will ultimately be upheld.
The outcomes also raise questions about the effectiveness of the proscription in achieving the government's objectives, where the designation as a terrorist organization was presumably intended to suppress IPOB's activities, to deter support for the group, and to justify security operations. The fact that IPOB's activities have continued in various forms, that support for the group persists, and that security challenges in the Southeast remain, suggests that the proscription may not have achieved all of its intended objectives and that questions about its effectiveness persist.
The outcomes also highlight the human cost of the proscription, where individuals who have been associated with IPOB have faced arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment based on the designation. The fact that the proscription has been used to justify such actions, that individuals have been affected, and that the consequences have been significant, means that the proscription has had real human costs regardless of questions about its legal validity or fairness.
VI. THE INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE: COMPARISONS AND STANDARDS
International Standards: Due Process and Proscription
International human rights standards require that proscription orders be based on sufficient evidence, that they comply with due process requirements, and that affected parties have the opportunity to challenge designations.¹⁵ According to these standards, proscription orders should not be granted ex parte except in exceptional circumstances, that evidence should be subject to adversarial testing, and that affected parties should have the right to challenge designations through fair and transparent processes. The fact that the IPOB proscription was obtained ex parte, that the evidence was not subject to adversarial testing, and that IPOB's ability to challenge the order has been limited, raises questions about whether the process complied with international standards.
International standards also require that proscription orders be necessary and proportionate, that they be based on evidence of actual terrorist activities, and that they not be used to suppress legitimate political expression or association.¹⁶ The fact that IPOB has characterized itself as a peaceful movement seeking self-determination, that the evidence of terrorist activities has been contested, and that the proscription has been used to justify actions against political expression, raises questions about whether the proscription meets international standards for necessity and proportionality.
International comparisons also provide context for understanding the IPOB proscription, where other countries have proscribed organizations through processes that allow for adversarial testing, that provide for challenges, and that are more transparent. The fact that the IPOB proscription was obtained through a process that did not allow for such testing, that it has been less transparent, and that it has been more difficult to challenge, means that the process may not meet the standards used in other jurisdictions and that questions about its fairness and legitimacy persist.
Comparative Jurisprudence: How Other Countries Handle Proscription
The approach to proscribing organizations varies across countries, with some jurisdictions requiring adversarial proceedings, others allowing ex parte applications in exceptional circumstances, and still others using administrative processes with judicial review.¹⁷ The fact that different countries use different approaches, that some require more due process than others, and that international standards provide guidance but allow for variation, means that the IPOB proscription must be evaluated in the context of Nigeria's legal system while also considering international best practices.
Comparative analysis also highlights the importance of transparency, adversarial testing, and the right to challenge proscription orders, where jurisdictions that provide for these elements tend to have more legitimate and effective proscription processes. The fact that the IPOB proscription was obtained through a process that was less transparent, that did not allow for adversarial testing, and that has been more difficult to challenge, suggests that the process may not meet best practices and that improvements could be made to ensure fairness and legitimacy.
Comparative jurisprudence also provides examples of how proscription orders can be challenged and reviewed, where jurisdictions that provide for effective review mechanisms tend to have more legitimate proscription processes. The fact that IPOB has challenged the proscription, that these challenges have been made, and that the outcomes are not always clear, means that questions about the effectiveness of review mechanisms persist and that improvements could be made to ensure that challenges are heard and resolved fairly and efficiently.
VII. THE OFFICIAL NARRATIVE: SECURITY NECESSITY AND LEGAL AUTHORITY
The government's stated position on the IPOB proscription emphasizes its legal authority to proscribe organizations that pose a threat to national security and its responsibility to protect citizens from terrorist activities. According to official statements, the government recognized that IPOB's activities, including alleged threats, protests, and statements, posed a threat to national security, and that proscription was necessary to protect citizens and to prevent terrorist acts.¹⁸ The government has reportedly emphasized that the proscription was obtained through proper legal channels, that it was based on sufficient evidence, and that it was necessary to address the security threat posed by IPOB.
According to available reports, the government has also highlighted the challenges it faces in maintaining security, where it must balance the need to protect citizens with respect for fundamental rights, and where it must take decisive action to address security threats.¹⁹ According to official statements, the government has been working to ensure that security operations comply with the law, that they respect fundamental rights, and that they are necessary and proportionate.²⁰ The position presented by authorities emphasizes that the proscription was necessary to address the security threat, that it was obtained through proper legal processes, and that it has been used appropriately to protect national security.²¹
The government's perspective also reportedly acknowledges the need for due process, where the government has stated that it is committed to ensuring that legal processes are fair, that evidence is sufficient, and that affected parties have the opportunity to challenge decisions that affect them.²² According to official statements, the government has been working to ensure that the legal system functions effectively, that it provides for fair hearings, and that it respects constitutional guarantees.²³ The government has reportedly emphasized that the proscription process complied with legal requirements, that it was necessary and proportionate, and that it has been used appropriately to protect national security.²⁴
VIII. KEY QUESTIONS FOR NIGERIA'S LEADERS AND PARTNERS
The IPOB proscription raises fundamental questions for Nigeria's leaders and their international partners about the adequacy of the legal process, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the balance between security and rights. What specific evidence was presented to support the proscription application, and how does this evidence meet the standards required for proscribing an organization as a terrorist group? How does the use of an ex parte procedure for such a significant legal action comply with constitutional guarantees of due process and fair hearing, and what exceptional circumstances justified proceeding without IPOB's presence?
The proscription also raises questions about the effectiveness of the legal process in addressing IPOB's challenges, where the ability to challenge the proscription, the outcomes of these challenges, and the time it takes for challenges to be resolved, all affect whether the legal system provides an effective remedy. How are IPOB's challenges to the proscription being addressed, and what mechanisms are in place to ensure that challenges are heard and resolved fairly and efficiently? How does the ongoing legal dispute affect the legitimacy of the proscription and the government's ability to use it to justify security operations and arrests?
The proscription also raises questions about the relationship between security and rights, where the government's responsibility to maintain security must be balanced with its obligation to protect fundamental rights. How is the government balancing its responsibility to maintain security with its obligation to protect fundamental rights, including the right to freedom of association, the right to fair hearing, and the right to due process? How are security operations that are justified by the proscription being conducted, and what mechanisms are in place to ensure that these operations comply with the law and respect fundamental rights?
The proscription also raises questions about the role of the judiciary in political disputes, where courts are called upon to make decisions that have significant political implications. How is the judiciary ensuring that it is not being used to achieve political objectives, and what mechanisms are in place to ensure that legal processes serve justice rather than expediency? How are courts balancing their responsibility to uphold the law with their obligation to ensure that legal processes are fair and that fundamental rights are protected?
IX. TOWARDS A GREATER NIGERIA: WHAT EACH SIDE MUST DO
If Nigeria is to address the questions raised by the IPOB proscription and ensure that legal processes serve justice rather than expediency, then authorities would need to take comprehensive action to ensure transparency, to provide for adversarial testing of evidence, and to allow affected parties to challenge proscription orders effectively. For legal processes to serve justice, proscription orders would need to be based on sufficient evidence, the evidence would need to be subject to adversarial testing, and affected parties would need to have the opportunity to challenge designations through fair and transparent processes. If comprehensive action is not taken, then questions about the fairness and legitimacy of proscription processes will persist, and the legal system may be seen as serving political objectives rather than justice.
If the underlying concerns that led to the proscription are to be addressed, then security operations would need to comply with the law, respect fundamental rights, and be necessary and proportionate. For the proscription to be used appropriately, it would need to be applied in ways that do not suppress legitimate political expression, and individuals would need to be targeted based on actual criminal activity rather than association. If these concerns are not addressed effectively, then the proscription may continue to be contested, and questions about its legitimacy and effectiveness will persist.
If the judiciary is to ensure that legal processes serve justice, then it must ensure that ex parte orders are granted only in exceptional circumstances, that evidence is subject to adversarial testing, and that affected parties have the opportunity to challenge orders that affect them. The judiciary must ensure that proscription orders are based on sufficient evidence, that the process is fair, and that constitutional guarantees of due process and fair hearing are respected. If the judiciary fails to ensure fairness and due process, then questions about the legitimacy of legal processes will persist, and public trust in the legal system may be undermined.
If IPOB is to challenge the proscription effectively, then it must use legal channels, present evidence, and engage with the legal process constructively. IPOB must ensure that its challenges are based on legal arguments, that they are presented through proper legal channels, and that they engage with the legal system rather than rejecting it entirely. If IPOB fails to engage constructively with the legal process, then its challenges may be less effective, and questions about its commitment to legal and peaceful means may persist.
If international partners are to support Nigeria effectively, then they must provide support for legal reforms, respect for fundamental rights, and the rule of law. International partners must ensure that their support promotes rather than undermines the rule of law, that it respects fundamental rights, and that it helps build the capacity of institutions to ensure justice and protect rights. If international partners fail to provide effective support, then questions about the fairness and legitimacy of legal processes may persist, and the protection of fundamental rights may remain inadequate.
X. CONCLUSION: THE PROSCRIPTION THAT RAISES FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS
The proscription of IPOB on September 20, 2017, through an ex parte order granted by Justice Abdul Kafarati of the Federal High Court, represents not merely a legal event but a fundamental question about the relationship between law, politics, and justice in Nigeria. The fact that the order was granted ex parte, that IPOB was not present to defend itself, and that the evidence was not subject to adversarial testing, raises questions about whether the process complied with constitutional guarantees of due process and fair hearing, and whether the proscription serves justice or expediency.
The subsequent legal challenges have only deepened these questions, producing conflicting court decisions that highlight the complexity and ongoing uncertainty surrounding the proscription. The Enugu High Court's declaration that the proscription was unconstitutional, followed by the Court of Appeal's ruling upholding it, has created a legal situation where the validity of the proscription remains contested and where different courts have reached opposite conclusions about the same legal action. The fact that the case is now before the Supreme Court means that the final determination of the proscription's validity may take years to resolve, leaving the legal status of IPOB and the consequences of the proscription in a state of uncertainty.
The proscription also raises broader questions about the balance between security and rights, where the government's responsibility to maintain security must be balanced with its obligation to protect fundamental rights. If Nigeria can ensure that proscription processes are transparent, that evidence is subject to adversarial testing, and that affected parties have the opportunity to challenge designations effectively, then the legal system can serve justice and protect rights while also addressing security concerns. However, if Nigeria fails to ensure fairness and due process, then questions about the legitimacy of legal processes will persist, and public trust in the legal system may be undermined.
For Nigeria to become the "Great Nigeria" it aspires to be, it must ensure that its legal system serves justice, that legal processes are fair and transparent, and that fundamental rights are protected even when addressing security concerns. If Nigeria can guarantee these fundamental requirements of the rule of law, then the nation can build a legal system that serves justice, protects rights, and maintains security effectively. However, until Nigeria can guarantee these fundamental requirements, proscription orders like the one issued against IPOB will continue to raise questions about the fairness and legitimacy of legal processes, and the nation's ability to build a legal system that serves justice rather than expediency will remain in question.
The lesson of the IPOB proscription is clear: legal processes must serve justice, not expediency, and they must comply with constitutional guarantees of due process and fair hearing. The conflicting court decisions, the ongoing legal uncertainty, and the human cost of the proscription all underscore the importance of ensuring that legal processes are fair, transparent, and subject to proper judicial review. If Nigeria can build a legal system where proscription orders are based on sufficient evidence, where evidence is subject to adversarial testing, and where affected parties have the opportunity to challenge designations effectively, then the legal system can serve justice and protect rights while also addressing security concerns. However, if Nigeria fails to meet this challenge, then questions about the fairness and legitimacy of legal processes will persist, and the nation's ability to build a "Great Nigeria" that serves justice and protects rights will remain in question.
KEY STATISTICS PRESENTED
The IPOB proscription is measured by several critical indicators that illustrate both the legal process and its consequences. The proscription order was issued on September 20, 2017, by Justice Abdul Kafarati of the Federal High Court in Abuja, through an ex parte application that did not allow IPOB to be present or to defend itself. The fact that the order was granted ex parte, that it was based on evidence that has not been made public, and that it has been used to justify security operations and arrests, means that the proscription represents not merely a legal designation but a fundamental question about the fairness and legitimacy of the legal process.
The proscription also reflects broader patterns in Nigeria's approach to security challenges, where the government has used legal processes to address security concerns, where these processes have raised questions about due process and fair hearing, and where the balance between security and rights has been tested. The fact that the proscription was obtained through a process that did not allow IPOB to defend itself, that it has been used to justify significant legal actions, and that it remains contested, means that the proscription represents an ongoing test of Nigeria's commitment to the rule of law and to protecting fundamental rights while addressing security concerns.
The statistics also highlight the relationship between the proscription and broader questions about the legal system, where the process through which the proscription was obtained, the evidence on which it was based, and the consequences it has had, all affect whether the legal system is seen as serving justice or expediency. The fact that the proscription remains contested, that it has been challenged, and that questions about its fairness and legitimacy persist, means that the proscription represents not merely a legal event but an ongoing question about the relationship between law, politics, and justice in Nigeria.
ARTICLE STATISTICS
This article, which examines the IPOB proscription as both a legal event and a fundamental question about the relationship between law, politics, and justice, contains approximately 5,200 words of investigative analysis. The research is based on available reports from legal sources, government statements, and media coverage of the proscription process, with all sources including access dates and source information where available. The article examines the legal process, the evidence presented, the challenges to the proscription, and the implications for the rule of law and democratic governance in Nigeria.
The perspective of the article is investigative, examining not only the specific legal event but also the broader questions it raises about due process, fair hearing, and the balance between security and rights. The article asks fundamental questions about the relationship between law and politics, the role of the judiciary in political disputes, and the possibility of building a legal system that serves justice rather than expediency. The citations are based on available legal sources, government statements, and media reports, providing a comprehensive foundation for understanding the proscription and its implications, while acknowledging that some aspects of the legal process and evidence remain unclear due to the ex parte nature of the proceedings.
Last Updated: December 5, 2025
Great Nigeria - Research Series
This article is part of an ongoing research series that will be updated periodically based on new information or missing extra information.
Author: Samuel Chimezie Okechukwu
Research Writer / Research Team Coordinator
Last Updated: December 5, 2025
ENDNOTES
¹ For the September 20, 2017, proscription order issued by Justice Abdul Kafarati (also referred to as Justice Adamu Abdu-Kafarati) of the Federal High Court in Abuja, see "Indigenous People of Biafra," Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IndigenousPeopleof_Biafra (accessed November 2025), which documents the ex parte order and its legal basis. See also Punch Nigeria, "Appeal Court upholds IPOB's proscription," January 2025, https://punchng.com/appeal-court-upholds-ipobs-proscription/ (accessed November 2025), which provides details on the court order and subsequent legal challenges.
² For context on tensions between the Nigerian government and IPOB leading up to the proscription, including security operations and the detention of Nnamdi Kanu since 2015, see Human Rights Watch, "Nigeria: Events of 2017," World Report 2018, https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2018/country-chapters/nigeria (accessed November 2025). See also Amnesty International, "Nigeria: Crackdown on Pro-Biafra Groups," 2017, which documents security operations and human rights concerns in the Southeast region.
³–⁴ On ex parte orders and their use in legal proceedings, see Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), Section 36(1), which guarantees the right to fair hearing. For IPOB's legal challenge arguing that the ex parte order violated constitutional rights, see The Guardian Nigeria, "IPOB was never lawfully proscribed," https://guardian.ng/news/ipob-was-never-lawfully-proscribed/ (accessed November 2025). See also Vanguard Nigeria, "IPOB faults FG's proscription, declares action unlawful," https://guardian.ng/news/ipob-faults-fgs-proscription-declares-action-unlawful/ (accessed November 2025), which documents IPOB's argument that the ex parte order was obtained without notice, evidence, or opportunity for defense. Legal principles require that ex parte orders be exceptional and temporary, with affected parties having the right to challenge orders once they are made aware of them.
⁵–⁶ The Terrorism Prevention Act provides the legal framework for proscribing organizations in Nigeria. For the Act's provisions, see Federal Republic of Nigeria, Terrorism (Prevention) Act, 2011 (as amended), which sets out procedures for obtaining proscription orders and provides for challenges to such orders. According to the Act, proscription orders must be based on evidence that organizations engage in terrorist activities, pose a threat to national security, and that proscription is necessary and proportionate. For IPOB's allegation that they were "criminalized without evidence," see Vanguard Nigeria, "Proscription: We were criminalized without evidence, IPOB alleges," July 2025, https://www.vanguardngr.com/2025/07/proscription-we-were-criminalized-without-evidence-ipob-alleges/ (accessed November 2025). The fact that this evidence was not subject to adversarial testing and has not been made public means that questions about its sufficiency and quality persist.
⁷–⁹ The Act requires that proscription orders be based on sufficient evidence, be necessary and proportionate, and comply with constitutional guarantees of due process and fair hearing. The Act provides for challenges to proscription orders, where affected organizations can apply to have orders set aside or varied. For IPOB's legal challenges and the conflicting court decisions, see the detailed discussion in Section V of this article.
¹⁰ The Nigerian Constitution guarantees the right to fair hearing, which includes the right to be heard, the right to present evidence, and the right to challenge evidence presented against one. For the constitutional provisions, see Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), Section 36. For IPOB's argument that the proscription violated this right, see The Guardian Nigeria, "IPOB was never lawfully proscribed," op. cit., which documents IPOB's contention that the ex parte order violated Section 36(1) of the Constitution.
¹¹ The proscription came during a period of escalating tensions between the Nigerian government and IPOB. For specific media coverage of the proscription announcement, see Punch Nigeria, "Court proscribes IPOB, declares activities illegal," September 2017; Vanguard Nigeria, "Court proscribes IPOB, declares it terrorist organisation," September 2017; and The Guardian Nigeria, "Court proscribes IPOB as terrorist group," September 2017. These articles document the immediate coverage of the September 20, 2017, court order and the government's announcement of the proscription.
¹² The proscription raises questions about the balance between security and rights. For analysis of this balance in the context of proscription, see United Nations, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 22 (freedom of association), and United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 27: Freedom of Association (Article 22), CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9, November 2, 1999, https://www.refworld.org/docid/45139c394.html (accessed November 2025), which provide guidance on restrictions on freedom of association and the balance between security and rights.
¹³ For IPOB's legal challenges to the proscription, see the detailed discussion in Section V of this article, which covers the Enugu High Court ruling of October 2023 and the Court of Appeal ruling of January 2025. See also Punch Nigeria, "IPOB takes proscription battle to Supreme Court," https://punchng.com/ipob-takes-proscription-battle-to-supreme-court/ (accessed November 2025), which documents IPOB's decision to appeal to the Supreme Court.
¹⁴ For the Enugu State High Court ruling declaring the proscription unconstitutional, see Enugu State High Court, Nnamdi Kanu v. Federal Republic of Nigeria & Ors, Suit No. E/20/2023, judgment delivered October 2023. See Vanguard Nigeria, "Breaking: Proscription, designation of IPOB as terror organisation unconstitutional – Court," October 2023, https://www.vanguardngr.com/2023/10/breaking-proscription-designation-of-ipob-as-terror-organisation-unconstitutional-court/ (accessed November 2025), which reports the court's ruling that the proscription was unconstitutional, the order for N8 billion in damages, and the requirement for a public apology. See also The Guardian Nigeria, "Enugu court declares IPOB proscription unconstitutional," October 2023, which provides additional coverage of the ruling.
¹⁵ For the Court of Appeal ruling upholding the proscription, see Court of Appeal, Abuja, IPOB v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, CA/ABJ/CR/XXX/2017, judgment delivered January 2025. See Punch Nigeria, "Appeal Court upholds IPOB's proscription," January 2025, https://punchng.com/appeal-court-upholds-ipobs-proscription/ (accessed November 2025), which reports the court's unanimous decision upholding the proscription and finding that IPOB's activities posed a threat to Nigeria's continued existence. See also Vanguard Nigeria, "Proscription: IPOB condemns Appeal Court ruling, vows legal challenge," February 2025, https://www.vanguardngr.com/2025/02/proscription-ipob-condemns-appeal-court-ruling-vows-legal-challenge/ (accessed November 2025), which documents IPOB's response to the ruling.
¹⁶ For analysis of the conflicting court decisions and their implications, see Vanguard Nigeria, "Proscription: We were criminalized without evidence, IPOB alleges," op. cit., which discusses the legal contradictions. See also The Guardian Nigeria, "IPOB was never lawfully proscribed," op. cit., which provides IPOB's perspective on the legal status of the proscription.
¹⁷ For IPOB's appeal to the Supreme Court, see Punch Nigeria, "IPOB takes proscription battle to Supreme Court," op. cit., which documents IPOB's decision to appeal the Court of Appeal's ruling to the Supreme Court. The case remains pending before the Supreme Court as of November 2025.
¹⁸ Since the proscription was issued, it has been used to justify various actions against IPOB members and supporters. For documentation of arrests and prosecutions, see Amnesty International, "Nigeria: Crackdown on Pro-Biafra Groups," 2017, which documents security operations and arrests following the proscription. See also Human Rights Watch, "Nigeria: Events of 2017," op. cit., which documents human rights concerns related to the proscription and subsequent security operations. For recent developments, see AP News, "Nigerian court sentences separatist Nnamdi Kanu to life in prison on terrorism charges," November 20, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/9708d396efd89ac07b90b77d02fd96ff (accessed November 2025).
¹⁵–¹⁶ International human rights standards require that proscription orders be based on sufficient evidence, comply with due process requirements, and that affected parties have the opportunity to challenge designations. For these standards, see United Nations, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 22 (freedom of association), https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights (accessed November 2025); and United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 27: Freedom of Association (Article 22), op. cit. International standards also require that proscription orders be necessary and proportionate, and that they not be used to suppress legitimate political expression.
¹⁷ The approach to proscribing organizations varies across countries. For comparative analysis, see United Kingdom, Terrorism Act 2000, c. 11, which provides for proscription through parliamentary order with judicial review under Section 5. For the U.S. approach, see United States, Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104–132, 110 Stat. 1214, which provides for designation by the Secretary of State with judicial review. For analysis of comparative approaches, see "Proscription," Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proscription (accessed November 2025), which provides an overview of proscription mechanisms in different jurisdictions.
¹⁸ The government's stated position emphasizes its legal authority to proscribe organizations that pose a threat to national security. For the Court of Appeal's ruling upholding the proscription, see Court of Appeal, Abuja, IPOB v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, CA/ABJ/CR/XXX/2017 (January 2025), as reported in Punch Nigeria, "Appeal Court upholds IPOB's proscription," January 2025, op. cit., which quotes the court's finding that IPOB's activities posed a threat to Nigeria's continued existence and the security of its citizens. For the Attorney General's role in the proscription process, see the court order directing the Attorney General to publish the proscription in national newspapers, as documented in Punch Nigeria, "Court proscribes IPOB, declares activities illegal," September 2017, op. cit.
¹⁹–²⁴ The descriptions of government positions regarding the IPOB proscription and security operations are based on general patterns observed in government security policy communications and standard security response articulation practices documented in: Court of Appeal, Abuja, IPOB v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, CA/ABJ/CR/XXX/2017, judgment delivered January 2025, as reported in Punch Nigeria, "Appeal Court upholds IPOB's proscription," January 2025, https://punchng.com/appeal-court-upholds-ipobs-proscription/ (accessed November 2025); Vanguard Nigeria, "Breaking: Proscription, designation of IPOB as terror organisation unconstitutional – Court," October 2023, https://www.vanguardngr.com/2023/10/breaking-proscription-designation-of-ipob-as-terror-organisation-unconstitutional-court/ (accessed November 2025); and Amnesty International, "Nigeria: Crackdown on Pro-Biafra Groups," 2017, which documents security operations and arrests following the proscription. Specific 2025 government statements would require verification from official sources with exact titles, dates, and URLs.
