The Court of Appeal in Abuja has said it will not grant the plea by Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed separatist group, the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB).
Kanu had sought to be allowed to challenge the order proscribing the group.
In a judgment, the Court of Appeal upheld the argument by lawyer to the federal government, Oyin Koleosho, that the application filed for Kanu by his lawyer, Alloy Ejimakor, was inappropriate.
Kanu had, in the application, sought to be allowed to appeal, as an interested party, the January 18, 2018 ruling by Justice Abdu Kafarati of the Federal High Court, Abuja (now late) affirming his earlier ex-parte order of September 20, 2017 proscribing IPOB and designating it a terrorist group.
It was part of Kanu’s contention that, since the Fed Govt allegedly capitalised on the IPOB proscription order to charge him with belonging to, and leading a terrorist group, he was qualified as an interested party, who should be allowed to part of a pending appeal filed by IPOB against the order proscribing it.
In the judgment delivered on May 30, a certified true copy (CTC) of which The Nation saw on June 12, a three member panel of the Court of Appeal held that it was inappropriate for Kanu to have filed his application directly at the appellate court.
Justice Hamma Barka, in the lead judgment, held that, as an applicant seeking leave to appeal as an interested party, Kanu ought to first file his application before the Federal High Court, Abuja, whose decision he sought to appeal.
Justice Barka further held that Kanu’s failure to first file his application before the Federal High Court was a violation of Order 6 Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2021.
He said: “In the instant case, it is apparent that no such leave was sought from the court below, thus, an affront to the provisions of Order 6 Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021.
“This knocks off the present application as being incompetent, not capable of being granted.
“The consideration of all other issues canvased to my mind will amount to an academic exercise for which courts are enjoined not to embark upon, and for this singular reason, the application being incompetent is accordingly struck out.”
Upon an ex-parte motion by the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), marked: FHC/AB)/CS/871/2017, Justice Kafarati had, in a ruling on September 20, 2017 ordered as follows:
*That an order declaring that the activities of the respondent (Indigenous People of Biafra) in any part of Nigeria, especially in the South east and South-South regions of Nigeria, either in groups or as individuals, amounts to acts of terrorism and illegality is granted.
*That an order proscribing the existence of the respondent (Indigenous People of Biafra) in any part of Nigeria, especially in the South east and South-South regions of Nigeria, either in groups or as individuals by whatever name they are called and publishing same in the official gazette and two national dailies, is granted.
*That an order restraining any person or group of persons from participating in any manner whatsoever in any form of activities involving or concerning the prosecution of the collective intention or otherwise of the respondent (Indigenous People of Biafra) under any other name or platform however called or described, is granted.
IPOB later applied to the court for it to set aside the orders, and in a ruling on January 18, 2018, Justice Kafarati dismissed IPOB’s application and affirmed his earlier orders proscribing the group and designating it a terrorist organisation.
IPOB subsequently lodged an appeal at the Court of Appeal, Abuja against the January 18, 2018 ruling.
It is the appeal, marked: CA/A/214/2018 that Kanu applied to be given permission to join as an interested party.