IPOB Proscription: Security Measure or Political Suppression in Nigeria?

 IPOB Proscription: Security Measure or Political Suppression in Nigeria? In December 2025, the United States and United Kingdom rebuffed Ni...

 IPOB Proscription: Security Measure or Political Suppression in Nigeria?

In December 2025, the United States and United Kingdom rebuffed Nigeria's latest attempt to have the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) designated as an international terrorist organization, reigniting debates over whether the group's proscription in Nigeria is a legitimate security measure or a politically motivated tool to stifle dissent. This rejection underscores the ongoing controversy surrounding IPOB's status, which has pitted advocates for self-determination against accusations of violence and threats to national unity. As Nigeria grapples with self-determination sentiments in its southeast region, the proscription of IPOB raises critical questions about the boundaries between terrorism, political expression, and state power.

Background on IPOB and the Push for Biafran Independence

The Indigenous People of Biafra, founded in 2012 by Nnamdi Kanu, emerged as a revival of long-standing calls for an independent Biafran state. Rooted in the memories of the 1967-1970 Nigerian Civil War, which claimed over a million lives, IPOB advocates for self-determination through peaceful means, such as referendums, while denouncing violence. Kanu, a British-Nigerian activist, gained prominence through his broadcasts on Radio Biafra, where he criticized the Nigerian government's marginalization of the Igbo ethnic group, including unequal resource allocation and political exclusion.

IPOB's activities initially involved protests, flag-waving marches, and cultural rallies, but tensions escalated in 2015 when Kanu was arrested on charges of treasonable felony. Released on bail in 2017, he fled the country after a military raid on his home during "Operation Python Dance," a security operation that resulted the deaths of 28 IPOB civilian . Kanu was abducted and extraordinary renditioned from Kenya back to Nigeria in 2021, facing terrorism-related charges under the Terrorism Prevention Act (TPA). In 2020, IPOB formed the Eastern Security Network (ESN) as an armed wing to combat insecurity, including clashes with herdsmen, though the group maintains this is defensive.

The 2017 Proscription: Security Threat or Political Maneuver?

In September 2017, under President Muhammadu Buhari's administration, IPOB was proscribed as a terrorist organization following an ex parte court order and military declaration. The government cited IPOB's alleged use of weapons like stones, Molotov cocktails, and machetes during protests, as well as threats to national security and unity. This move was endorsed by southeast governors and justified as a response to violent demonstrations that disrupted public order.

Critics, however, argue the proscription was politicized to suppress IPOB Self-determination quest rather than address genuine terrorism. Unlike Boko Haram or Fulani herdsmen groups responsible for thousands of deaths, IPOB has not been linked to widespread bombings or mass killings, and no IPOB member has been convicted of terrorism despite numerous arrests. Online reactions and academic analyses suggest the label was applied discriminatorily, with some viewing it as a tactic to criminalize peaceful advocacy. The TPA, amended in 2013 and 2022, grants broad powers to proscribe groups, but its application to IPOB has been criticized for blurring lines between dissent and violence.

Legal Twists and Turns: From Nullification to Affirmation

The proscription's legality has been fiercely contested in Nigerian courts. In October 2023, an Enugu High Court ruled the ban unconstitutional, declaring self-determination not a crime and ordering southeast governors to pay N8 billion in damages to Kanu for rights violations. The court argued the proscription discriminated against IPOB compared to other groups and infringed on freedoms of association and expression.

However, this victory was short-lived. On January 30, 2025, the Court of Appeal in Abuja affirmed the 2018 Federal High Court order proscribing IPOB, ruling that the government acted lawfully given threats to national existence and citizen security. The three-justice panel upheld the designation, emphasizing IPOB's activities as endangering unity. Kanu's legal team issued notices in June 2024 demanding media and officials cease labeling IPOB as terrorist, citing the High Court's ruling and lack of evidence.

The Controversy: Accusations of Politicization and Double Standards

At the heart of the debate is whether terrorism is being politicized. Supporters of the proscription point to IPOB's alleged links to violence, including attacks on security forces and enforced "sit-at-home" orders that disrupt businesses in the southeast. Yet, detractors argue the label provides cover for extrajudicial killings and state-sponsored violence, with thousands of IPOB members reportedly killed since 2016. Groups like Miyetti Allah, associated with herdsmen attacks, remain unproscribed, fueling claims of ethnic bias.

Human rights organizations and UN rapporteurs have condemned the proscription for infringing on political rights, warning it could exacerbate insecurity rather than resolve it. The southeast has seen rising violence since 2017, with some blaming "unknown gunmen" on state actors smear campaigns to justify the ban.

International Reactions and Implications

Internationally, the proscription has found little support. The U.S. Council on Foreign Relations advised against designating IPOB in 2022, arguing it doesn't pose any threat and could lead to atrocities and regional instability. In December 2025, both the U.S. and UK rejected Nigeria's bid, stating IPOB fails to meet evidence-based criteria for terrorism and emphasizing dialogue over bans. UK officials highlighted southeastern complexities as a mix of unrest, crime, and state violence, not pure terrorism.

This stance isolates Nigeria, potentially limiting its ability to curb IPOB's overseas funding. Analysts suggest it reflects a broader view of the conflict as rooted in governance failures, urging investments in infrastructure and equitable policies.

Family Writers Press International.