A court in Nigeria’s capital, Abuja, has upheld an earlier ruling that pro-secessionist group, Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), is a terrorist group.
The court presided over by Justice Abdul Kafarati ruled that the Attorney General of the Federation had used proper legal processes to apply for IPOB’s proscription in September 2017.
The group through its lawyer, Ifeanyi Ejiofor, challenged the proscription order arguing that IPOB, not being registered in Nigeria but in some other countries, could not be sued in Nigeria and that the government had violated the rights of the group having secured the order ex parte.
The judge, however, dismissed the suit, noting that an organisation registered abroad could be likened to a foreigner who could be arrested in another country where he was found to have committed a crime.
An ex parte motion is one that does not require the other party to be represented for the court to take a decision. The judge said the AGF having the consent of the President was enough grounds for the earlier proscription ruling.
The judge also ordered the applicants to pay 500,000 Naira as damages, stressing that the rights of IPOB members had not been abused by the legal processes.
The group, based in Nigeria’s South East, has been pushing for secession following a similar independence struggle which happened decades ago.
Leader of the current agitation, Nnamdi Kanu, has been missing since September 2017 after his followers clashed with the Nigerian Army in his hometown in Umuahia, Abia State.
What really is “Terrorism Label?”
It is often said that there is “no definition of terrorism.” But that’s not quite accurate. What people mean is that there is no one standard definition of terrorism that everyone agrees on. It’s not that there is no definition of terrorism; it’s that there are too many.
Like Historian John Bowyer Bell once said: “Tell me what you think about terrorism, and I will tell you who you are.”
To help understand what people are actually saying when they use the word “terrorism,” it’s useful to think about terrorism as three different things: a tactic, a legal term, and a political label. Understanding each of these ways the “terrorism” label is used will help understand why different people call different things “terrorism”.
Terrorism as a tactic
Some see terrorist organizations as groups that are trying to accomplish specific goals, whether these goals are revenge (like Boko Haram), gaining political and territorial independence for the group they claim to represent (like IPOB), or persuading governments and corporations to act more responsibly toward its environment (like the Niger Delta Militants groups).
Thinking of terrorism as a tactic helps us think more critically about these groups and how to deal with them because although we often talk about “terrorist groups,” the reality is that most of these organizations use a variety of tactics throughout their lifespan depending on their goals and capabilities at the moment.
Similarly, many scholarly definitions of terrorism require that the attack have an explicit political motive. Which means even a mass shooting and killings like the case of Benue may not be considered an act of “terrorism” by scholars if it turns out that there was no clear political motive.
Terrorism as a legal term
The Nigerian law defines terrorism as an act “intended or [that] can reasonably regard as having been intended” to force a government or an international organization to carry out or abstain from carrying out a certain act is an act of terrorism.
It further defines a terrorist as A person who knowingly—
(a) does, attempts or threatens to do an act preparatory to or in furtherance of an act of terrorism;
(b) Commits to do anything that is reasonably necessary to promote an act of terrorism; or
(c) Assists or facilitates the activities of persons engaged in an act of terrorism commits an offense under this Act.
This implies that any action that falls within the definition can be labeled as an act of terrorism while anyone involved can be labeled a terrorist.
Terrorism as a political term (bad name)
Politicians often apply the word “terrorism” to the actions of individuals and groups they see as opponents and enemies in order to delegitimize and demonize them, to incite fear and convince a population to support controversial government actions, and to garner support by promoting an ‘us-versus-them’ narrative.
For instance, the US State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations is often portrayed as some kind of exhaustive, authoritative list of terrorist groups around the world, whereas, which groups get included on the list and which get excluded is a largely political determination, than an analytical one.
“One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” conveys the idea that people are inconsistent in how they define terrorism and tend to eschew the word when the person or group in question is on their side.
According to renowned terrorism scholar, Bruce Hoffman, “On one point, at least, everyone agrees: ‘Terrorism’ is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one’s enemies and opponents.”
