Shiites: ‘Our ban was approved by Abba Kyari not Buhari’

IMN was proscribed in July 2019, days after the group protested in Abuja.

The Islamic Movement in Nigeria (IMN) better known as Shiites has argued that its ban in 2019 did not follow the law because the proscription order was approved by Chief of Staff to the President, Abba Kyari and not President Muhammadu Buhari.

In July 2019, the Federal High in Abuja ordered the proscription of the movement days after the group protested the continued detention of its leader, Sheikh Ibraheem El-Zakzaky.

The protest reportedly led to the death of a police officer, a journalist and 11 others.

Faulting its proscription, the IMN argued that Justice Nkeonye Maha while issuing the proscription order on July 26, 2019, only relied on a memo by Abba Kyari.

Chief of Staff to the President, Abba Kyari is accused of playing the role of the president .(Daily Post)

The memo was said to have conveyed the presidential approval for the proscription application to the National Security Adviser, Babagana Mogunno, Punch reports.

The group also maintained that neither Kyari’s memo nor a letter by Mogunno, dated July 23, 2019, requesting Buhari’s approval for their proscription was exhibited in court.

The IMN said these in its reply on points of law filed at the Federal High Court in Abuja to challenge the court order that banned and designated it as a terrorist group.

However, in its documents filed at the court, the Federal Government said the ban followed the law.

Meanwhile, in a reply filed in February, Falana argued that Section 2(1) of the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 stated that, “it is the approval of the President that must be sought and obtained and not that of any Chief of Staff to the President”.

He said, “Aside from the furious ruse made by the applicant/respondent at paragraph 4.21–4.23 of the counter-affidavit, the material allegation raised by the respondent/applicant (IMN) that the approval of the President was never sought and obtained and properly exhibited as required by the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act 2013 was never disproved and controverted by the application.

“The Chief of Staff, Mr Abba Kyari, however powerful, is not the President and assuming without conceding that the NSA sought his consent and approval to proscribe the respondent/applicant herein, any approval so sought and obtained is null and void for failing to conform to a statutory stipulation.”

In a bid to support its claims, the group also referred to a recently leaked memo addressed to the service chiefs, saying Kyari had no constitutional role to write a memo that allegedly conveyed the presidential approval for the proscription application.

“Particularly, where the very state official coordinating and supervising all the security apparatus in the country has accused the same Chief Staff (a merely itinerary employee of the President who has no constitutional role whatsoever of usurping the powers of the President, undermining security apparatus, allegations that borders on treason and flagrant desecration of the constitution,” the group’s lawyers said.