By Joyce Ekeh
The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has questioned the legal basis for the 20-year prison sentence imposed on Paul Okechukwu by the Federal High Court in Abuja, arguing that the conviction raises questions about the application of a terrorism law repealed in 2022.
Okechukwu, 48, from Nnewi South Local Government Area of Anambra State, was sentenced on Thursday after pleading guilty to a charge of belonging to IPOB in Imo State in 2021, contrary to Section 16 of the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act, 2013.
The Federal Government had also accused him of participating in an attack that allegedly killed two security operatives. However, the prosecution withdrew the second count after Okechukwu pleaded not guilty to it.
Delivering judgment, Justice Hawa Yilwa sentenced him to 20 years’ imprisonment after the Attorney-General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi, argued that the applicable provision prescribed the term as the minimum punishment for the offence.
Reacting through its Media and Publicity Secretary, Emma Powerful, IPOB questioned the reliance on the 2013 legislation, contending that it had been repealed by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.
The group cited Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides that a person cannot be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence and its penalty are defined in a written law.
IPOB argued that the legal basis for the conviction required clarification, particularly regarding the legislation applicable to an alleged offence committed in 2021 and the effect of the subsequent repeal.
The group also raised questions about its proscription in 2017, claiming that an earlier ruling by Justice Binta Nyako had found that IPOB was not an unlawful society before a subsequent ex parte order proscribed it.
It challenged the legal implications of the proscription order and called for scrutiny of the relationship between the earlier proceedings and the subsequent order.
IPOB further argued that the withdrawal of the count relating to the alleged attack underscored the need to distinguish between alleged membership of an organisation and individual criminal conduct.
The group urged the judiciary to clarify the legal basis of Okechukwu’s conviction and called on detainees facing related charges to seek independent legal representation and avoid entering guilty pleas under coercion.
However, the legal merits of IPOB’s objections cannot be determined solely from the group’s statement. They would depend on the relevant statutory provisions, any applicable transitional arrangements and the reasoning contained in the court’s judgment.
The court’s judgment and the relevant legislation would therefore need to be examined to establish the precise legal basis for the sentence and assess the issues raised by the group.
