The incarcerated leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, submitted an application requesting to be included in the appeal against the Federal Government’s proscription of the organization. The Court of Appeal, Abuja division has deferred hearing the matter until March 7, 2023.
Kanu has submitted the joinder application as an interested party in the Federal High Court’s judgment on January 18, 2018, in suit no. FHC/ABJ/CS/871/2017, which outlawed IPOB, on September 5, 2022.
Although the appeal court was supposed to meet on Wednesday for the hearing of the application, it did not, therefore the date was changed to March 7, 2023.
Kanu’s lead attorney, Chukwuma-Machukwu Ume (SAN), who filed the processes, stated that his client was challenging the trial court’s decision, which was made without consulting him.
Kanu has suggested that the ruling be appealed after expressing discontent with it.
He claimed in his proposed grounds of appeal that the trial judge had committed a legal error when he said: “The Attorney-General in his application exparte produced documentation proving the existence of a threat to national security by the Respondent/Applicant and I therefore made the order. I firmly believe that the Applicant’s rights to a private and family life, freedom of expression, the right to peaceful assembly, and freedom of movement have not been violated by the order defining the Respondent/Applicant organization from September 20, 2017. Additionally, I maintain that the grant on the Exparte order did not violate the Applicant’s entitlement to a fair hearing.
Ume argued that the ex parte Order proscribing the Appellant and its listing as a terrorist group violated the applicant’s constitutional right to a fair hearing when the 2nd Respondent arrested, detained, and is currently prosecuting the Applicant on charges of terrorism and as a member/leader of the Appellant on six count charges, solely based on the ex parte Order declaring and proscribing the Appellant as a terrorist group.
That charging the applicant with the aforementioned offenses—all of which are fully based on the ex parte order in question and about which the applicant was not informed—violated many of the applicant’s constitutional rights, most notably his right to a fair trial. Section 36(1) of the Federal Republic of Nigeria’s Constitution (as amended).
Additionally, he claimed that the trial court’s ruling that “the wording ‘the judge in chambers may on an application filed by the Attorney-General…’ presume that the application is to be made ExParte” caused a grievous miscarriage of justice that negatively harmed the applicant. The Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act, 2013, utilized “judge in chambers” rather than “ex parte” while enacting the procedure for obtaining an Order of proscription and declaring an entity as a terrorist organization, and the learned trial judge lifted those words. The existing and cliched legislation is as follows regarding the obvious difference between “judge in chambers” and “ex parte”: Ex parte does not mean the same thing as ‘judge in chambers,’ according to its simple sense.
A judge-in-chambers does not imply that only one side would be heard, unlike ex parte, which bears features of one party only being heard even in open court (not always in chambers). In Dingyadi v. INEC (No. 1) (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1224) 1 S.C., the Supreme Court stated the following, articulating this well-thought-out position: “The Supreme Court and any other court are enjoined by the Constitution and the rules of natural justice to observe such rules that ensure a fair hearing or trial. https://tribuneonlineng.com/ipob-proscription-appeal-court-shifts-kanus-joinder-application-to-march-2023/
This covers Chambers Sessions in which parties are not present or are not represented. All sides must be heard or given the chance to be heard before this may be accomplished. The processes and any supporting attachments present their submissions on the topic or item being discussed. When the appeal was denied by the Supreme Court in Chambers in the current case, the first and second respondents were not given a fair hearing, which amounted to a nullity.
As a result, the Supreme Court annulled all of the proceedings including the ruling. [Reference made to Totapo v. Sunmonu (1987) 2 NWLR (Pt. 58) 587.] (Pp. 53–54, paras. H–B; paras. G–H; and par. D–E on p. 91) ”
