The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) categorically rejects and denounces the fraudulent and unconstitutional proscription engineered by the Nigerian government through an ex parte court order issued in 2017. Let it be stated unequivocally: IPOB was never lawfully declared a terrorist organisation under Nigerian or international law. We challenge anyone—including the Nigerian government, the judiciary, and the press—to cite a valid judicial pronouncement, issued after a full and fair trial, that supports this false designation.
The Federal High Court ruling of 2017 that purported to proscribe IPOB was obtained without notice, without evidence, and in absolute violation of Section 36(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), which provides:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations, a person shall be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time…”
No civilised society proscribes organisations or convicts persons behind their backs. The Nigerian government acted in secret, with the sole aim of silencing IPOB’s legitimate demands for self-determination.
Let us be clear: IPOB is the only group in Nigerian history ever labeled a terrorist organisation that has gone to court to challenge its proscription all the way to the Supreme Court of Nigeria. Which so-called terrorist group does that? Boko Haram has never done so. ISWAP has never done so. Fulani herdsmen (Miyetti Allah)—named by the Global Terrorism Index as the 4th deadliest terror group in the world—have never even been declared illegal.
It bears repeating: The Nigerian government has never presented any credible evidence—no arms, no bank transfers, no bomb factories—to prove that IPOB is violent. Instead, it relies on hearsay, press propaganda, and a corrupt segment of the judiciary eager to rubber-stamp executive wishes.
As reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal in Duruaku v. Nwoke (2015) LPELR-24216(CA),
“You cannot condemn a man unheard… That is the essence of natural justice.”
Similarly, the Supreme Court in Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee v. Fawehinmi (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 7) 300 warned:
“Fair hearing is not a technical doctrine. It is a rule of substantial justice which is fundamental to every civilised legal system.”
The ex parte order relied on by the government was not a conviction, nor was it a judgment on the merits. It was a legal ambush—devoid of cross-examination, evidence, or defense. Yet certain media houses and government agencies have run wild with this deception for eight years. Enough is enough.
The Constitution is not ambiguous. Section 1(3) declares:
“If any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail…”
And Section 36(6) mandates that no person or group can be criminalised without first being notified of the allegation and given a chance to defend themselves. IPOB was denied both.
It is only in a quasi-primitive legal system that you convict or proscribe a person behind their back. Let this be a warning: Anyone who publicly or maliciously refers to IPOB as a terrorist organisation without a valid conviction will be sued. Numerous defamation cases are pending in courts across the federation, and many more will follow.
As one of our leading legal minds rightly asked:
“If you open your mouth to call IPOB a terrorist group, you will be sued.”
To the press, we say: Your duty is to report facts—not to peddle state propaganda. There is a marked difference between a proscribed society and a terrorist organisation. Both are not the same. Any person with a rudimentary appreciation of basic English would know this but not in Nigeria. Where were these commentators when IPOB won cases against the Nigerian government in 2018 and again in 2023 challenging the legality of its proscription? Where is your journalistic integrity?
To the judiciary, we remind you of Lord Denning’s eternal words in R v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Ex parte Blackburn (1968) 2 QB 118:
“Justice must be rooted in confidence: and confidence is destroyed when right-minded people go away thinking: ‘The judge was biased.’”
We demand the following:
That the Judiciary vacate the illegal proscription of IPOB as null and void.
That all media houses cease labeling IPOB a terrorist group unless they can cite a judgment issued after a fair trial.
That the international community take note of Nigeria’s serial abuse of anti-terrorism laws as instruments of ethnic suppression.
That Nigerians reject the dangerous erosion of constitutional guarantees being perpetrated under the guise of national security.
To those in doubt, let this final irony sink in: IPOB remains the only proscribed group in Nigeria willing to litigate its name to the Supreme Court. Boko Haram and ISWAP have no such interest. Ask yourselves: what kind of terrorist organisation sues for its rights?
We are law-abiding. We are resilient. We are not terrorists.
Let the courts, the world, and history record this truth.
Signed,
IPOB Directorate of Legal Affairs, Research and Global Communications
