Biafra: Controversy Surrounds Appeal Court Judgment on IPOB's Proscription

 Biafra: Controversy Surrounds Appeal Court Judgment on IPOB's Proscription 

■ Writer: Ezekwereogu Odinaka

■ Twitter:@umuchiukwu

■ 04.02.2025

Allegations of Bias and Corruption Raise Questions About Justice The recent judgment by the Nigerian Appeal Court, upholding the proscription of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) as a terrorist group, has sparked widespread controversy and outrage. 

The decision, handed down by Justices Hamma Akawu Barka, O.E. Abang, and O.O. Oyewumi on January 30, 2025, has been met with fierce criticism from human rights groups, lawyers, and members of the public, who question the impartiality and fairness of the ruling. Allegations of Bias and Corruption Justices O.E. Abang and O.O. Oyewumi have previously faced serious allegations of bias and corruption. 

Abang has been accused of delivering judgments that consistently favour the government, while Oyewumi has been criticized for handling high-profile cases. On July 12, 2017, Justice Abang was accused of bias in a high-profile case involving former Governor Nyesom Wike. His decision was widely criticized, with many arguing that it was influenced by external factors. Similarly, Justice Oyewumi has faced criticism for handling cases involving human rights activists and opposition figures. 

Also Read:Justice Under Siege: Why Nigeria's Judicial System Must Stand Against IPOB's Proscription

On February 22, 2019, he was accused of disregarding the constitutional rights of the accused and delivering a judgment widely seen as unfair in the case of prominent human rights activist Omoyele Sowore. Implications of the Judgment The ruling upholding IPOB’s proscription as a terrorist group has far-reaching consequences for the people of the Southeast region and IPOB members. The proscription has been used to justify human rights abuses, including arbitrary arrests, detention, and extrajudicial killings. Many argue that the judgment is a clear attempt by the government to silence opposition voices and suppress dissent. 

The proscription of IPOB has been widely condemned by human rights groups, who argue that it violates the organization’s fundamental rights to freedom of association and expression. Conclusion The Appeal Court’s decision to uphold IPOB’s proscription as a terrorist group raises serious concerns about the integrity of the judiciary and the government’s commitment to human rights. 

The allegations of bias and corruption against the judges, combined with the far-reaching implications of the judgment, have created a sense of unease and distrust among the public. As Nigeria continues to grapple with issues of justice and accountability, the judiciary must remain impartial and fair in its decisions. 

The Nigerian people deserve a judiciary that is independent, unbiased, and committed to upholding the rule of law while protecting human rights. 

Edited by Mazi Ikechukwu Chibundu 

Editor in Chief Udeagha Obasi 

Published By Umuchiukwu Writers