The Federal Government on Wednesday told the Abuja division of the Federal High Court that the Islamic Republic of Iran is sponsoring the detained leader of the Islamic Movement of Nigeria (IMN), Sheikh Ibraheem El-Zakzaky, to forcefully Islamize Nigeria by turning the country into an Islamic State.
In a 56-page counter affidavit filed before the court, the Federal Government traced the relationship between El-Zakzaky and Iran which, it claims, started shortly after the Iranian Revolution of 1979, an Islamist revolt that toppled a sitting government.
While arguing that members of the IMN do not recognize President Muhammadu Buhari’s authority as President, the document revealed that El-Zakzaky, who was a Shia activist in university, was “heavily influenced” by the Iranian Revolution, and had since galvanised his followers into unleashing mayhem against the Nigerian State and its citizens.
In the counter-affidavit, which was deposed to by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, FCT Command, Enyinnaya Adiogu, the Federal Government urged the court to dismiss the suit the IMN filed to challenge the order that proscribed its activities in Nigeria.
DCP Adiogu told the court that he had the consent of the Attorney General of the Federation, the National Security Adviser and the Inspector General of the Police to depose to the affidavit.
According to his averrements:
“From history and facts available, the Movement Called Islamic Movement of Nigeria founded by El-Zakzaky has its sole aim of creating an Islamic State.
“That Sheik El-Zakzaky was heavily influenced by the Iranian revolution, which saw Ayatollah Khomeini take power in 1979 after the overthrow of the Shah in a popular uprising. Khomeini remains the Islamic Movement in Nigeria’s main inspiration.
“That members of IMN First pledge allegiance to Khomeini at their gatherings, and then to their local leader, Sheikh Zakzaky.
“The IMN views itself as a government, and Sheikh Zakzaky as the only legitimate source of authority in Nigeria and it does not recognise the authority of the Nigerian government, and views its leaders both Muslims and Christians as corrupt and ungodly.
“That the Islamic Movement in Nigeria began with a Shia Muslim university activist Ibraheem El-Zakzaky who became so impressed with the 1979 revolution in Iran that he wanted one at home (Nigeria). Later, El-Zakzaky went to Iran, ultimately becoming a Shia cleric.
“That at his return home, Ibraheem El-Zakzaky formed the Islamic Movement of Nigeria and turned it into a vehicle for proselytizing and gaining followers in 1990s.
“That till date, Sheikh El-Zakzaky enjoys the support of Iran in all the activities of the Islamic Movement in Nigeria, including the agenda to make Nigeria an Islamic State.
“That as a result of El-Zakzaky Movement’s activities, many Muslim youths have converted to Shia-Islam of the Islamic Movement in Nigeria.
“That the main aim of the Islamic Movement in Nigeria is to propagate the ideology in Iran and turn the Country (Nigeria) into an Islamic State as was done in the Iranian Revolution of 1979.
“That the violent acts of the members of the Respondent/Applicant right from its inception up to the 24tg day of July 2019, is chronicled in an affidavit in support of the motion used in proscribing the Respondent/Applicant.
“That considering the violent acts of the members of the Respondent/Applicant, and their known agenda of achieving an Islamic State in Nigeria, the office of the National Security Adviser wrote to the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria requesting for his approval to proscribe the Respondent/Applicant.
“That the Presidential Approval was obtained and same was conveyed by Exhibit 10 attached to the affidavit of the Applicant/Respondent in support of the Motion ex parte dated the 25th July 2019 and the court sighted same during the hearing of the ex parte application.
“That after hearing the motion ex parte filed by the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation, this Honourable Court made an order declaring the Islamic Movement in Nigeria as a terrorist group.
“The Certified True Copy of the Records of proceedings of 26th day of July 2019 and the Order of the Court is hereby attached and marked Exhibit FGN16 and FGN17, respectively.
“That I was informed by Dayo Apata Esq, Solicitor General of the Federation and one of the Counsel handling this matter on the 23rd day of August, 2019 at about 12.00 13.00 hours during briefing on this matter in his office at the Federal Ministry of Justice Abuja, and verily believe him to be true as follows:
“That Contrary to the deposition of Haruna Garba Magashi in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9, the Prescription process is done without service on the proscribed organisation or its members.
“That Contrary to the deposition in paragraphs 7-9 of the Respondent/Applicant’s supporting affidavit, the procedure for proscription does not require service on the Respondent.
“That one Hammed Ajibola Iimoh Esq, in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1103/2017 between Hammed Ajibola limoh Esq vs Attorney General of the Federation of the Federal Republic of Nigeria challenged the Provision of Section 2 (1) of the Terrorism (Prevention & Prohibition) Act 2011, (as amended 2013) as constituting a breach of fair hearing.
“That the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja per Maha J., followed, relied and adopted the decision of Kafarati CJ. (as he then was) in the case of Attorney of the Federation v. Indigenous People of Biafra, Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/871/2017 decided that Section 2 (1) of Section 2 (1) of the Terrorism (Prevention & Prohibition) Act, (as amended 2013) is not in breach of fair hearing.
“Certified True Copy of the Judgment of Maha J., referred to in the above paragraph delivered on the 6th March 2019 and the Certified True Copy of the Ruling of Kafarati CJ. (as he then was) in Suit No. FHC/ABI/CS/871/2017 delivered on 18/1/2018 are hereby attached and Marked Exhibit FGN19 and FGN2O respectively.
“That the decision of Kafarati CJ (as he then was) in suit No. FHC/ABI/CS/871/2017 delivered on 18/1/2018 upholding the position that Section 2(1) of the Terrorism (Prevention & Prohibition) Act 2011, (as amended 2013) is not in breach of Right to Fair Hearing has been appealed against and the Appeal is still pending at the Court of Appeal Abuja. The Notice of Appeal in Appeal No. CA/A/214/2018 between Indigenous People of Biafra v. Attorney General of the Federation is hereby attached and marked Exhibit FGN21.
“That the proscription process does not require the filing of the ex parte motion alongside motion of notice.
“That contrary to the deposition in paragraphs 11 and 20 of the Respondent/Applicant’s supporting affidavit, the proscribed organisation and its members are given the opportunity to approach the court for setting aside the order if they have reasons to do so.
“That undertaking to pay damages is not needed in prescription proceedings.
“That Contrary to paragraphs 13 and 14 of the deposition in the affidavit in support, the Applicant/Respondent did not misrepresent or suppress any fact in the affidavit in support of the motion filed on the 25th of July, 2019.
“That the head of the Islamic Movement in Nigeria and its members preach violence cause mayhem on the defenceless and innocent citizens of Nigeria. A video of Ibraheem Zakzaky preaching violence in Hausa and its transcription from Hausa to English is hereby attached and marked Exhibit FGN 28.
“That contrary to paragraph 21 of the Respondent/Applicant in the supporting affidavit, the Federal Government and the Nigeria Security Agencies have never attacked worshipers in any Mosque or place of worship or anywhere at all.
“That the members of the Respondent usually block the High Way and access road to prevent other citizens and Government functionaries from using the way which in most case are without an option of alternative.
“That the clash between the Nigeria Army and members of the Respondent in December 2015 was as a result of the violent acts of the members of the Respondent against the Men and Officers of the Nigeria Army, including the Chief of Army Staff.
“That after the said clash the commission of inquiry was set up and the commission indicted members of the Respondent and recommended that the Head of the Respondent be held accountable for all the lives lost due to the violent nature of his members who always pledge total allegiance to him.
“That in line with the recommendation of the Commission of inquiry, the Head of the Respondent and his wife are now standing trial for Culpable Homicide punishable by death among other offences filed by the Kaduna State Government where the killings occurred.
“That the Nigeria Army did not attack the members of the Respondents and neither destroyed any property belonging to members of the Islamic Movement in Nigeria.
“That upon the judgment in suit No. FHC/ABI/CS/281/19 the Federal Government lodged an appeal against the judgment and the appeal is still pending at the Court of Appeal.
“That while the appeal was pending, the Government of Kaduna State filed a 6 count charge against the Sheikh Ibraheem Zakzaky his wife for Offences bothering on Culpable Homicide punishable by death among others and they were arraigned on the 16th of May. 2019.
“That upon their arraignment they applied for bail and bail was refused by the court on the 7th of November, 2018 and the order refusing them bail and remanding them in Prison Custody in Kaduna State is still subsisting.
“That contrary to the deposition ln paragraphs 30 of the Respondent/Applicant in the supporting affidavit, the unwarranted protest of the members of the Respondent/Appllcnnt has always being Violent. Exhibits FGN lA1C. FGN 2A 8: 28. FGN 3, FGN 4A, FGN 5. FGN 7, FGN 8. FGN 9, and FGN 14 attached to the affidavit In support of motion dated and filed on the 25th July 2019 through which the prescription Order was obtained show the level of violent acts of the IMN.
“That all the six judgments mentioned in paragraph 34 of the Respondent/Applicant’s supporting affidavit were not obtained against the Applicant/Respondent.
“That all the judgments attached by the Respondent/Applicant as exhibits were cases under state offences and were not prosecuted by the Applicant/Respondent.
“That Contrary to the deposition in paragraph 36 and 37 in the Respondent/Applicant‘s affidavit, the Security agencies have not provoked members of the Respondent/Applicant, and neither have the police killed their members and took away the bodies.
“That on the last violent protest by the members of the Respondent/Applicant on the 22nd day of July 2019, they killed a DCP in charge of operations in FCT and burnt down a life-saving ambulance worth Millions of Naira which was stationed beside the Foreign affairs Ministry. This can be seen in Exhibits FGN 4A -4E in support of the motion dated and filed on the 25th of July, 2019.
“That the violent protest in Abuja against the detention of the Sheikh Ibraheem El-Zakzaky and another protest by the members of the Respondent resulted into break down of law and order leading to loss of lives and property worth millions of Naira.
“That there are many videos online (YouTube) which captured the violent activities of the members of the Islamic Movement in Nigeria. The videos have been downloaded and burn in a DVD plate.
“The DVD plate containing 10 of such Video clips by Oak TV, Channels TV, Daily Trust TV, Sahara TV , TV 360 Nigeria and two recordings posted by a mobile phone is hereby attached and Marked Exhibit FGN 23. The DVD will be played at the hearing of this application.
“That the members of the Respondent/Applicant without any provocation by the National Assembly violently attacked the National Assembly, destroyed some structures. smashed and burnt down both public and private vehicles. As can be seen in Exhibits FGN 2A and 28 attached to the affidavit in support of the motion ex parte dated the 21st day of July 2019.
“That all the time the members of the Respondent/Applicant were violently protesting in Abuja, for the release of Sheikh Ibraheem Zakzaky and his wife, they were in lawful custody by an order of the Kaduna State High Court and these facts is well known by the deponent who is a legal practitioner and the Respondent/Applicant’s lead Counsel.
“That as at the time the members of the Respondent/Applicants were violently protesting in Abuja, destroying public property and locking up public offices and causing the death of innocent citizens, the Federal Government of Nigeria had no powers to order the released of their acclaimed leader.
“That Contrary to paragraph 40 of the Respondent/Applicant affidavit, all the cases mentioned therein are criminal cases in which members Government of Sokoto State and that of Kaduna State respectively charged members of the Respondent/Applicant at various times for acts of violence in those states.
“That these cases show clearly that Members of the Respondent/Applicant are a security threat to the entire Nation as all their activities are done in violation of the laws of the land.
“That Contrary to paragraph 42 of the Respondent/Applicant’s affidavit, the members of the Respondent are not prohibited from being Muslims, practising Islamic Religion and being members of the Shiites (Shia) group of the Islamic sect.
“That it is not all Shiites (Shia) practising Muslims that are members of the Islamic Movement in Nigeria and another group of Shia (Shiites) group such as Al-Thaqalayn Cultural Foundation, led by Sheikh l-lamza Lawal has condemned the activities if [MN as being against the principles of Islamic. A copy of the Nigeria lawyer with an article titled ‘Shi’ite’s heads to court over proscription’ is attached and Marked Exhibit FGN24.
“That due to the violent nature of the activities of members of the Respondent/Applicant, the Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ) has urged the Federal Government to curtail activities of the Respondent/Applicant.
“That despite the subsistence of the Court Order, the members of the Respondent have described the proscription as a huge joke and have continued to protest in Abuja and other State.
“That the members of the Respondent/Applicant protested on the 30/07/2019, 31/07/2019, 01/08/2019, 02/08/2019 and 8/08/2019 in violation of the Court Order made on the 26th July 2019.
“That there are several unregistered organisation such as 1. ‘Abdullah Azzam brigades, 2. AI-Mulathameen, 3. Amaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, 4. Allied Democratic Forces, 5. Ansar al-Sharia Dema , 6. Ansar aI-Sharia (Libva), 7. Ansar aI-Sharia Tunisia 8. Ansar Bait al-Ma-disAnsar ul Islam 2.Ansaru Armed Islamic Grouof Aheria, 10. AI-Barakat, Boko Haram, 11. Egyptian Islamic Jihad, 12. Al-Jama’a al-lslamia 13. Islamic State in Somalia, 14. Al-Itihaad al-Islamia, 15. Jabhatul Islamia, 16. Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. 17. Lord’s Resistance Army, 18. Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group, 19. AI-Mourabitoun militant group, 20. Jama’at Nasr al-lslam wal Muslimin, 21. Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa, 22. Muaskar Anole, 23. Mu’ahideen Shura Council in the Environs of Jerusalem 24. Muslim Brotherhood, 25. Muslim Brotherhood in Ezwt, 26. Ras Kamboni Brigades, 27. Al-Shabaab militant group, 28. Soldiers of Egypt, and 29. Tunisian Combatant Group, that are not registered but are designated as terrorist groups in Africa.
“That incorporation or Registration is not a criterion for the designation or proscription of an organisation or named group as a terrorist group.
“That once an association of person under a name have decided to wreak havoc on a state and its citizenry, that organisation can be proscribed and designated a terrorist group.
“That some other organisation of the Shiites (Shia) practising Muslims such as the group led by Hamza Muhammed Lawal have distanced themselves from the Respondent.
“That I know of fact that the 5 pillars of Islam are: Declaration of faith (shahadah), Performing prayers five times daily (Salat) in Charity and almsgiving (Zakat), Fasting during Ramadan (Sawm), Pilgrimage to Meéca (Hajj).
“That Violent protest, burning down of public property, threatening revenge by killing government functionaries are not among the pillars of Islam.
“That I know as of the fact that after the proscription, no member of the Islamic Movement in Nigeria has been denied access to a mosque to perform his religious obligation.
“That I make this counter-affidavit in good faith conscientiously believing the facts to be true and in accordance with the Oaths Act 2004.”
