The Islamic Movement in Nigeria (IM), known as the Shi’ites, has described the Abuja High Court order proscribing its activities as a “ huge joke.”
The Federal High Court through Justice Nkeonye Maha had on Friday designated the activities of the IMN in any part of the country “as acts of terrorism and illegality,” asking the Federal Government to proscribe the Islamic sect.
But reacting to the order, the President, Media Forum of the Islamic Movement in Nigeria, Ibrahim Musa, in a statement on Sunday, said the group “learnt of the fallacious court order” but the movement had yet to receive it.
He said, “Our scholars and lawyers are already studying the development, and we will provide an appropriate and adequate response in due course.”
The statement partly read, “We are in consultations with our lawyers, and we will, as a peaceful people who have been victims of the Buhari government’s sponsored terror attacks throughout his first term and continuing, give an appropriate response.
READ ALSO: Ministership for Sale: Up to N2.5b Per Slot – By Farooq Kperogi
“…We reject any false terror attacks that the authorities would be plotting in our name, and by this assure the general public that we have never contemplated the use of terror tactics. This is not about to change.
Also speaking on the development, a judiciary watchdog, Access to Justice, in a statement by its convener, Mr Joseph Otteh, said it was dismayed that Justice Maha would grant such an order in a way that sacrificed the rights of the Shi’ites to present their own side of the story.
The group said, “A legitimate judicial process takes account of, and hears the cases and defences of everyone accused of misconduct and/or whose interests would be affected by a court decision and orders. To that extent, Justice Maha’s ruling is strongly objectionable. It did not follow nor respect basic constitutional standards applicable to a judicial proceeding, but disavowed inexplicably and without justification.
“In a democracy, legislations must pass the tests of constitutionality to be enforceable by a court. The court ought to have satisfied itself that the legislation under which it acted, which so gravely imperils the fundamental rights of citizens to assemble and move freely, champion their causes and practise their religion, passes constitutional muster. It did not do so, unfortunately.”