It may not be common to have consensus ad idem regarding the true meaning of the term "Lawful ". This is not distant from the fact that what is lawful to one may be unlawful to another. However, it may ordinarily be accepted that the term "lawful " designates 'goodness', 'acceptability ' and the like.
Looking at the term from a legal point, lawful would mean, 'conforming to law', permitted by law or recognised by law. To be lawful, means, to be legitimate, justified , justifiable, not contrary to law.
Considering the above stated meaning of the term 'lawful ' and juxtapose it with the existence of the Indigenous people of Biafra (IPOB) as both a people and an organization, in relation to lawfulness, one would not need to look too far in seeking to know wether it is a lawful organization or not. There are several indicators that point to IPOB as both lawful people and an Lawful outfit, inter Alia:
First, the Indigenous people of Biafra(IPOB) as a group of people seeking for self-determination has the firm backing of International law. Article 11 of the UN chatter, empowers the indigenous peoples to both exist and operate without fear of Favour. Thus, such a people wether they are called a group or an organisation is by international law, lawful ab initio. Where this is understood and IPOB, by both description and definition is a group of people , is not less lawful.
Second, the legality of the quest for the restoration of Biafra, for which IPOB is on board, is doubtless. The demand is covered by UN law via "Third Generation Rights", which allows a group who by force of colonization or arms are compelled into an association with aliens, to seek for self-determination when and if they feel disenchanted with such association.
Third, the 1999 constitution of the "federal Republic of Nigeria " (as amended) in section 38 shunned compelling a person or persons into an association or out of one. That section presupposes -That on no account should a person or persons be forced to associate against his will.
- That under no circumstance should a person or persons be disallowed to terminate an association that is repugnant to his or/and their acceptance.
Where that section of the constitution of Nigeria has made provision for the right of freedom from unhealthy association and IPOB is a people , it follows that she has the right of freedom to choose what she wants, who to associate with, who to disassociate from without fear of intimidation and every activity covering these freedoms are covered by law and therefore lawful.
Fourth, Section 39, " CFRN" allows the right of freedom of expression. This section presupposes:
-That a person has right express his feelings about whatever without fear of being hunted.
-That a person can speak against what he feels is not right.
-That anyone exercising these rights is doing a lawful activity and any platform serving this activity is lawful.
Except where both the UN law and the law of Nigeria are in doubt, IPOB would in all circumstances always be adjudged lawful.
- Livingrich Ezeikpe