Lawyer Aloy Ejimakor has said the proscription of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) as a terrorist group in 2017 was never about genuine national security but a politically motivated tool to suppress legitimate political dissent by the Igbo people and criminalise an entire ethnic group’s political expression.

In an opinion piece, Ejimakor revealed that International bodies, Nigerian courts, and even the US and UK have repeatedly flagged the terror tag on IPOB as disproportionate, unlawful, and discriminatory.

He recalled that on October 1, 2020, multiple UN Special Rapporteurs sent an official communication to the Nigerian government urging it to “reconsider the proscription of IPOB as a terrorist group” and explicitly warned that “proscription should not be used as a means to quell legitimate political opinion and expression, nor to prevent individuals from exercising their rights of peaceful assembly and of association.” The rapporteurs stated further that: “We are concerned that these growing restrictions… may [reflect] a growing climate of intolerance towards the Igbo and Christian minorities…” Ejimakor stated that this was not abstract criticism but built on earlier findings by former Special Rapporteur Agnes Callamard (end-of-visit statement, 2nd September 2019).

He said that In Opinion No. 25/2022 (published July 2022), the UN Human Rights Council examined the case of IPOB leader Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. It declared his detention arbitrary, citing his rendition as tied directly to his leadership of IPOB. The UN Council demanded his unconditional release and compensation, underscoring that criminalising membership in IPOB violates international standards on freedom of association and expression.

He recalled that on March 18, 2018, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) issued provisional measures in Communication 680/17 (Nnamdi Kanu & IPOB v. Federal Republic of Nigeria). It explicitly called on Nigeria to “rescind its decision branding IPOB and its members as terrorists” and “not to take any further action so as to avoid irreparable damage to the Victim, IPOB and its members.”

He stated that on October 26, 2023, in Suit No. E/20/2023 before Justice A.O. Onovo of the Enugu State High Court, the court declared the 2017 proscription of IPOB “illegal, unconstitutional, null and void.” It awarded N8 billion in damages to Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and ordered a public apology. Crucially, the court ruled that the proscription and its enforcement violate Section 42 of the 1999 Constitution, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of ethnicity. This judgment stands as binding authority exposing the proscription’s true intent: collective punishment of Igbos for daring to seek a referendum.

He pointed out that neither the United States nor the United Kingdom has ever designated IPOB a terrorist organisation. “Nigeria lobbied both governments to do so internationally and both refused,” he said.

“The UK applies a ‘rigorous, evidence-based approach’ and concluded IPOB ‘does not meet the legal criteria to be banned under UK law’.

“The US has similarly declined, with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) warning in a 10 February 2022 analysis that designating IPOB would be a ‘mistake that risks causing a massive human rights crisis’.”

Ejimakor stated that from the foregoing, the evidence is irrefutable and compelling – the terror tag on IPOB is not a genuine security policy, but a thinly-veiled ethnic discrimination aimed at Igbos, and it has enabled extrajudicial killings, mass arrests, and a climate of fear, while legitimate political agitation is crushed.

“De-proscription is not clemency; it is justice. It restores constitutional equality, complies with binding international opinions, and ends the weaponisation of anti-terror laws against one ethnic group. Nigeria’s government must act now to repeal the proscription, release those held solely for IPOB affiliation, and engage in genuine dialogue,” he said. (The Guardian)

Update news