News
Judge declines to recuse herself from ex-ministers libel suit
Justice Keziah Ogbonnaya of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court, on Monday, refused to recuse herself from a libel suit filed by a former Nigerian foreign affairs minister, Geoffrey Onyeama.
In the said suit, Onyeama claimed that a career ambassador in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Lillian Onoh, who is also a sister to his former wife, for libel, allegedly defamed him in a series of memos she sent to him while he was the minister.
But in the middle of the proceedings, Mrs. Onoh accused the trial judge of bias against her and urged her to hand off the case and return the case file to the Chief Judge for reassignment to another judge.
When the matter resumed on Monday, counsel to Mrs Onoh, Richard Aneke, asked the judge to recuse herself from the case based on his client’s instruction.
Aneke drew Justice Ogbonnaya’s attention to a pending petition before the Chief Judge of the FCT High Court, seeking a reassignment of the case to another judge.
Ms Onoh also petitioned the National Judicial Council (NJC), asking it to carry out disciplinary against the judge for being overtly partial in her handling of the suit.
Mrs Onoh’s grouse with the judge is that she hails from Enugu State, where Mr Onyeama comes from.
The defendant also argued that the claimant had hatched a plan with the judge to rob her of justice.
But in her ruling on Monday, Justice Ogbonnaya said she was assigned the suit by the Chief Judge of the FCT High Court, Hussein Baba-Yusuf.
The defendant had accused Mr. Onyeama of influencing the transfer of the case from Eleojo Enenche to Justice Ogbonnaya, to get a favourable decision.
“No judge assigns cases himself, it is the Chief Judge of the FCT High Court that assigns cases. It is the same Chief Judge that tells a judge to stop hearing a particular case.
“Unless and until the Chief Judge sends a copy of the petition to me for response, this case will go on.
“Since the Chief Judge has not ordered for the reassignment of this case, this matter shall continue in this court. That is the order of this court,” Justice Ogbonnaya explained.
Acknowledging the presence of journalists at the proceedings, the judge advised Mr Aneke and “emissaries in the courtroom” to convey the court’s order to Ms Onoh.
“The emissaries take this message to her that this court has ordered that this matter shall go on and this judge will not recuse herself. She did not assign the case to me. This matter shall continue to go,” Justice Ogbonnaya said.
Onyeama’s lawyer expresses shock over petition
Mr Onyeama who served in former President Muhammadu Buhari’s regime for nearly eight years attended Monday’s proceedings.
His lawyer, Agada Elachi, expressed surprise at Ms Onoh’s allegation of bias against the judge.
“I am shocked to hear this from the defense lawyer. It is within counsel’s right to say what he has said, but the purported petition in its entirety is based on hearsay,” Mr Elachi, a SeniorAdvocate of Nigeria (SAN) said.
He said the defendant had never witnessed the judge conduct proceedings in the case.
“She has never had any opportunity of witnessing my lord conduct proceedings to show that this court is biased.”
Mr Elachi argued that there was no legal basis for Justice Ogbonnaya to recuse herself from continuing to hear the case.
He further contended that Ms Onoh’s petition was “a ploy to frustrate the hearing of this matter.”
While acknowledging that it was within the Chief Judge’s purview to consider the petition, Mr Elachi contended that “there is no law that requires my lord to stop proceedings in this matter.
“We urge the court to continue with the proceedings pending when the truth of this petition will be unravelled,” Elachi said.
Monday’s hearing was earlier fixed for the adoption of final written addresses, signalling the end of the suit before judgement is handed down.
But the defence lawyer informed the court of pending requests bothering on extension of time to file Ms Onoh’s defence statement out of time and to allow her testify before the judge via Zoom.
Thereafter, Mr Aneke said he could no longer continue with the case because of Ms Ogbonnaya’s refusal to withdraw from the matter.
Subsequently, the judge asked Mr Aneke if he was abandoning his client’s pending applications, which he said no.
“I have my client’s instruction not to proceed with the case, should my lord refuse to recuse herself from the matter. Regarding the motions, I am not abandoning my motions,” Mr Aneke said.
In his response to the issue, Mr Elachi, prayed the court to dismiss the applications on account of Mr Aneke’s intention to withdraw from the case.
In another short ruling, Justice Ogbonnaya said the “pending motions are deemed to have been moved” by Mr Aneke despite his fierce objection to the judge’s continued handling of the case.
“It is the view of this court that since the motions are before the court, the court deems them moved by the 1st defendant’s counsel,” the judge said.
The judge went to reject Mr Aneke’s request for an adjournment to enable him confer with Ms Onoh concerning the application for recusal which the judge declined.
Mr Elachi had sought a N50,000 fine against Mr Aneke for seeking an adjournment.
He said he would only agree for an adjournment if the judge adjourned until Thursday, December 14, which the judge reversed herself, and adjourned the case.
When the Enugu State House of Assembly adopted the report of its Special Committee on Land Matters and Disputes in 2024, many observers described it as a watershed moment in the long-running controversy surrounding the Centenary City land in Amechi and Obeagu communities.
The report attracted national attention because it tackled a dispute that had generated numerous court cases, allegations of intimidation, destruction of property, community unrest, and claims involving some of the most influential figures in the state.
For many residents of Amechi and Obeagu, the Assembly’s intervention provided the first official platform where their grievances appeared to receive impartial consideration. The committee’s findings were widely commended for their detailed examination of the circumstances surrounding the acquisition and development of over 1,097 hectares of ancestral land.
At the heart of the controversy was the allegation that Private Estates International West Africa Limited (PEIWA), operating under a development agreement with the Enugu State Government, relied on questionable documents to assert rights over vast portions of land originally linked to a proposed university project initiated during the administration of former Anambra State Governor, Dr. Jim Nwobodo.
After reviewing submissions from the parties, the Assembly committee identified several inconsistencies in documents connected with the acquisition process. Among its findings were concerns regarding the authenticity of a survey plan purportedly prepared for the “Permanent Site of Enugu State University of Science and Technology” in 1985, despite the fact that Enugu State had not yet been created at that time.
Controversial Enugu Centenary Land: A Daniel Has Come To Judgement
The committee also questioned the authenticity of signatures and official endorsements appearing on key documents, including survey records, gazette notices, and correspondences allegedly executed on behalf of traditional authorities in Amechi and Obeagu communities.
Based on these findings, the committee concluded that the host communities had established that they were not properly carried along in the acquisition process and recommended dialogue, compensation, government intervention, and a comprehensive audit of lands developed under the Centenary City project.
At the time, many hailed the report as evidence that the legislature was willing to confront powerful interests in defence of justice and accountability.
Two years later, events appear to have given fresh significance to those findings.
Today, Kingsley Eze, Chamberlin Mbachu and Private Estates International (W.A.) Limited are facing criminal charges before the Federal High Court, Enugu, in connection with the alleged forgery of a survey plan linked to the disputed acquisition of ancestral lands in Amechi and Obeagu communities.
According to the charge sheet in Charge No. FHC/EN/CR/84/2025, the defendants are accused of conspiring to forge a survey plan titled “Permanent Site of Enugu State University of Science and Technology” purportedly dated 1985.
The prosecution alleges that the defendants knowingly made or uttered the survey plan as a genuine document despite its alleged falsity. The offences are said to be punishable under relevant provisions of the Miscellaneous Offences Act.
The criminal charges have drawn renewed attention to the conclusions reached by the Enugu State House of Assembly in 2024, particularly its observations regarding inconsistencies surrounding the same survey plan and related acquisition documents.
The developments have also prompted further advocacy from civil society organisations. The Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Centre (RULAAC) has called on the Inspector-General of Police to direct the Police Monitoring Unit to take over investigations and prosecutions connected with the dispute, investigate allegations of misconduct against certain police officers, and review criminal proceedings allegedly used for harassment and intimidation.
In a separate petition dated May 28, 2026, RULAAC also urged the Inspector-General of Police to intervene in two criminal cases pending before the Federal High Court, Enugu, citing repeated failures by law enforcement authorities to produce defendants for arraignment.
The cases include Charge No. FHC/EN/CR/84/2025, IGP v. Kingsley Eze & 2 Others, and Charge No. FHC/EN/CR/222/2024, IGP v. Alex Ifeadi & 2 Others.
As the criminal proceedings continue, many observers believe the matter has entered a decisive phase. The allegations that were once the subject of community petitions, legislative inquiries and public debate are now before a court of law for determination.
Whether the Assembly’s 2024 report marked the beginning of accountability or merely one chapter in a much longer struggle remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that the issues raised by the Amechi and Obeagu communities have not faded away. Instead, they have evolved into a legal test that could shape public confidence in land administration, governance and the rule of law in Enugu State for years to come.
If the legislative findings, criminal investigations and court proceedings ultimately converge on the truth, then many residents may indeed conclude that, at long last, a Daniel has come to judgment.
Son of the late head of state and former Minister of Defence, Chief Thomas Aguiyi-Ironsi, in a letter of remembrance and solidarity written on behalf of the Aguiyi-Ironsi family to the Fajuyi family, marking the 60th anniversary of his death, said July 29, 2026, will be a solemn occasion to honour a soldier they described as “a war hero who offered himself as a sacrificial lamb for the unity and integrity of the nation.”
The family recalled that Lt Col Fajuyi, then Military Governor of the Western Region, made the ultimate sacrifice in 1966 when mutinous soldiers abducted him alongside Maj Gen Aguiyi-Ironsi in Ibadan during the military counter-coup.
They stated that Fajuyi, in a defining moment of conscience, chose honour over personal safety and refused to abandon his guest and superior, a decision the family said reflected the highest ideals of loyalty, integrity, and military brotherhood.
According to the statement, his action transformed him into a national martyr whose legacy continued to inspire unity, courage, and selfless service.
The Aguiyi-Ironsi family also expressed sympathy with the Fajuyi family, acknowledging the enduring pain of their loss, while praying for continued strength, comfort, and peace.
The statement further stated, “He did not run. He did not hide. He chose to stand. In that sacrificial decision lay the essence of his greatness.”
The family called on government institutions, military authorities, and custodians of national memory to ensure sustained recognition and support for the Fajuyi family, stressing that his sacrifice remained a national responsibility to remember and honour.
It urged Nigerians to draw inspiration from his life and death, noting that his legacy continues to challenge the nation to uphold unity, courage, honour, and selfless service.
Fajuyi was killed on July 29, 1966, during the military counter-coup in Ibadan alongside Aguiyi-Ironsi.
By Okey Maduforo Awka
The emergence of Chief Ikeagwuonu Ugochinyere as the Minority Leader of the Federal House of Representatives has been described as a vindication of the fact that the Action People’s Party (APP ) represents the collective interests of the Nigerian masses.
Recall that recently, Ugochinyere was elected as the Minority Leader of the party in a keenly contested election of the Federal House of Representatives.
According to a statement by the Chairman Anambra state chapter of the APP Chief Chijioke Okeke, Ugochinyere had been consistent in offering himself as the voice of the people and that of the voiceless.
“It did not come to us as a surprise that our great leader High Chief Ugochinyere became the Minority leader of the Federal House of Representatives because he has always been consistent and focus towards providing himself as the only vent for the masses at the Green Chambers”
“We know his pedegre as a politician as well as a leader and he has remained focus in ensuring that the voiceless are heard and this is also a vindication of our party’s unflinching desire to provide a veritable platform in a democratic process”
Okeke further stated that the fifth columnists who had attempted to deregister the party have been put to shame adding that the party shall continue to champion the interests of the Nigerian people.
“They made failed attempt at deregistering our great party but they lost sight of the fact that the APP is firmely rooted on ground and has all that it takes to drive the wishes and aspirations of the Nigerian populace and with this recent development our traducers have been put to shame and our party is on the path of further greatness “. Okeke noted .
By Okey Maduforo Awka
Six members of the Indigenous People Of Biafra IPOB have been declared wanted by the Nigerian Police .
The six persons led by Mr Chukwuebuka Ohaechesi, include Emma Okonkwo, Jude Uwa, Gentle Okoro, Uchenna Dike, and Emmanuel Nwankwo who are said to be at large.
The were said to have fled to neighboring states in the South East hence signaling the other four Police Commands in the geopolitical zone to assist in the manhunt for them
The Police accused them of executing protests against the detaintion of the leader of IPOB Mazi Nnamdi Kanu who is currently serving jail terms in Sokoto Correction Center.
According to a statement issued by the Abia Police Public Relations Officer of the Command, ASP Eguavon Omokaro, the individuals are suspected members of IPOB who have allegedly participated in protests at various times and locations within the state.
The statement alleged that the protests were organised in connection with the continued detention of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and demands for justice through the judicial process.
The Police Command further stated that these protests have allegedly resulted in breaches of peace and disruptions to law and order in Abia State. Consequently, the Police Intelligence Department reportedly concluded that the named individuals were among the principal organisers and coordinators of the demonstrations.
The statement further alleged that; ;
“It should be noted that on every 30th day of May, these men and their cohorts convene for the so-called remembrance of Biafra, holding clandestine meetings at various locations in the name of the emancipation of the Biafran Republic and the release of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.”
According to the police, the six individuals were invited on several occasions for questioning in relation to the allegations against them.
The statement indicated that the first invitation was issued on 18 December 2025, followed by a second invitation on 7 February 2026, and a third invitation on 3 March 2026.
The police alleged that the individuals failed to honour all three invitations.
The statement further asserted:
“These individuals were invited by the police on several occasions. Firstly, on 18 December 2025, they failed to honour the invitation. Again, they were invited on 7th February 2026 and failed to appear. Finally, they were invited on 3 March 2026, and they also failed to present themselves before the police.” It stated.
As a result, the Abia State Police Command announced that all six individuals had been formally declared wanted.
The police appealed to members of the public to provide any reliable information that could lead to their arrest and prosecution, stating that informants would be suitably rewarded.
The declaration of the six individuals as wanted persons is linked to allegations of their participation in pro-Biafra activities, demonstrations concerning the detention of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, and their alleged association with IPOB, an organisation that has been the subject of extensive scrutiny and security operations by Nigerian authorities.
-
Crime5 days agoOyo abduction: Teachers begin strike as Tinubu sends 1,000 forest guards to rescue victims
-
Education5 days agoEnugu East Chairman Celebrates Children’s Day with St. Ann’s College, Reaffirms Commitment to Education
-
News5 days agoDSS Detains Novelist Okey Ndibe at Lagos Airport, Awaits Clearance from Abuja
-
Crime5 days agoUS Announces $3.5m Religious Freedom Initiative, Questions Nigeria’s Response to Attacks
-
Crime4 days ago2 Police Officers Shot Dead as Gunmen Attack Anambra Chief of Staff’s Convoy
-
News3 days agoPower Doesn’t Last Forever, It Has Expiry Date — VeryDarkMan Warns Wike
-
Politics3 days agoSpeaker suspended over anti-party activities
-
Crime4 days agoAbducted Army General: Gunmen Make Demands, Contact Family