BIAFRA: IPOB DRAGS FG TO AFRICAN COMMISSION OVER ILLEGAL PROSCRIPTION
The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) and its leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, have taken Nigeria to African Commission for Human and Peoples’ Rights in Banjul, the Gambian capital, to challenge its proscription.
In a suit filed on December 5 and made available to newsmen, IPOB’S attorney, Mr Alloy Ejimako of Adulbert Services, on behalf of the victims/complainants, legal representative, respectfully urged the Commission among other reliefs to invoke its powers under Rule 111 of its Rules of Procedure and adopt provisional measures.
Urged the respondent state not to take any further action that would cause irreparable damage to Nnamdi Kanu, IPOB and its members until this case had been heard by the Commission; to adopt other urgent measures as it deemed fit in the circumstances of this case to protect the victims in the interim and to take such further and final measures consistent with its powers and discretions to protect the victims.
The suit, according to the “lawyer pursuant to the pertinent Articles of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (hereafter; the ‘Charter’); Rule 111 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission; and the inherent powers and jurisdiction of the Commission.”
He contended that tagging IPOB a terrorist group and its consequent proscription had put the leader and members in danger of being shot and killed on sight by security agencies.
He recalled the incidents that led to the arrest and incarceration of Kanu which culminated in the decision of the Nigerian government to gazette IPOB as a terrorist organisation, saying that the implication of the action was that Kanu and members of the group would be denied the rights guaranteed by the charter of the commission.
The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) and its leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, have taken Nigeria to African Commission for Human and Peoples’ Rights in Banjul, the Gambian capital, to challenge its proscription.
In a suit filed on December 5 and made available to newsmen, IPOB’S attorney, Mr Alloy Ejimako of Adulbert Services, on behalf of the victims/complainants, legal representative, respectfully urged the Commission among other reliefs to invoke its powers under Rule 111 of its Rules of Procedure and adopt provisional measures.
Urged the respondent state not to take any further action that would cause irreparable damage to Nnamdi Kanu, IPOB and its members until this case had been heard by the Commission; to adopt other urgent measures as it deemed fit in the circumstances of this case to protect the victims in the interim and to take such further and final measures consistent with its powers and discretions to protect the victims.
The suit, according to the “lawyer pursuant to the pertinent Articles of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (hereafter; the ‘Charter’); Rule 111 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission; and the inherent powers and jurisdiction of the Commission.”
He contended that tagging IPOB a terrorist group and its consequent proscription had put the leader and members in danger of being shot and killed on sight by security agencies.
He recalled the incidents that led to the arrest and incarceration of Kanu which culminated in the decision of the Nigerian government to gazette IPOB as a terrorist organisation, saying that the implication of the action was that Kanu and members of the group would be denied the rights guaranteed by the charter of the commission.
No comments
Post a Comment