The case, involving Mike Igini, a former resident electoral commissioner of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and Colonel David Imuse (Retd.), former Chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Edo State, has reportedly been stalled despite clear instructions from the NJC that proceedings should continue before the original trial judge.
Fresh controversy has engulfed the Edo State judiciary following allegations that the Chief Judge, Hon. Justice Daniel Iyabosa Okungbowa, has continued to defy directives of the National Judicial Council (NJC) in connection with a protracted N5 billion libel suit.
The case, involving Mike Igini, a former resident electoral commissioner of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and Colonel David Imuse (Retd.), former Chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Edo State, has reportedly been stalled despite clear instructions from the NJC that proceedings should continue before the original trial judge.
According to findings by SaharaReporters, the situation has raised concerns within legal circles, with insiders alleging what they described as a “theatre of judicial mutiny” and “a direct challenge to the authority of the National Judicial Council.”
NJC Directive and Alleged Defiance
The controversy stems from Suit No. B/555/2020, a libel case that has lingered in court for over five years. The NJC, Nigeria’s apex judicial regulatory body, had in its last sitting reportedly directed that the matter should not be restarted but instead continue from where it stopped.
“The case must not be started de novo,” the Council reportedly ruled, ordering that the file be returned to the trial judge, Hon. Justice V.O. Eboreime, “to complete the proceedings.”
However, sources familiar with the matter alleged that despite this directive, “the wheels of justice are being held in a chokehold, within a web of conspiracy designed not to allow the five-year-old matter to proceed.”
History of Dispute
The development is said to be part of a broader pattern. In June 2025, the NJC queried Justice Okungbowa over alleged abuse of discretion in the same case.
At the time, the Chief Judge had reportedly attempted to restart the case afresh, a move described as a “de novo gambit”, which would have nullified years of proceedings, including witness testimonies.
Notably, one of the claimant’s witnesses had died during the course of the trial.
Fresh Petition and Court Inaction
Following the NJC’s intervention, the case file was briefly returned to Justice Eboreime. However, proceedings were again disrupted after a new petition was reportedly filed by Col. Imuse against the trial judge.
Observers described the move as “a synchronised manoeuvre” and “yet another frivolous petition” aimed at stalling the case.
While the trial judge reportedly responded promptly to the petition “within 24 hours as directed by NJC protocols,” the court has since failed to resume sitting.
At the adjourned date of February 2, 2026, when the 1st defendant (Imuse) was expected to open his defence, “the court did not sit.”
‘Justice Under Arrest’
For over two months, proceedings have remained stalled, with insiders alleging administrative interference.
Sources close to the case lamented that “the courtroom has remained silent” and suggested that the situation amounts to “the hostage-taking of the law.”
They further alleged that the Chief Judge is “utilising the quiet power of the registry and administrative ‘non-sittings’ to ensure the case never reaches a verdict.”
The halt in proceedings is particularly significant given the stage of the trial.
The claimant, Igini, has already closed his case, while the 2nd and 3rd defendants, that is, two media organisations, have also concluded their defences. Only Col. Imuse is yet to present his case.
By preventing the trial from continuing, critics argue that the situation effectively grants “the 1st Defendant an indefinite stay of proceedings,” despite NJC guidelines stating that petitions should not halt cases at advanced stages.
Legal analysts warn that the dispute could have far-reaching implications for the integrity of the judiciary.
“It represents a moral destitution at the peak of the state’s temple of justice,” one source stated, adding that when a Chief Judge disregards oversight, “he is shredding the social contract. He is telling the Nigerian citizen that the ‘Rule of Law’ is subordinate to the ‘Rule of the CJ.’”
For now, the case remains stalled, with critics concluding that “justice remains under arrest in Benin City, and the handcuffs are held by the very office sworn to break them.”
Background: Igini’s N5Billion Defamation Suit
In 2020, Igini filed a defamation suit against retired Colonel Imuse following public allegations made by Imuse during a press conference on the eve of the Edo governorship election.
Imuse had claimed that Igini, then REC for Akwa Ibom State, was seen leaving then-Edo Governor Godwin Obaseki’s residence at 3:00 a.m. with a bag allegedly filled with cash to influence the election outcome. Igini demanded a retraction and apology, which Imuse refused to provide.
Consequently, Igini filed Suit No. B1/555/2020 at the Edo State High Court, joining The Sun Newspapers and African Newspapers of Nigeria Plc (Tribune) as co-defendants. The case progressed significantly before Justice V.O. Eboreime, with Igini and the other two defendants having closed their cases. Only Imuse had yet to present his defence.
Controversial Reassignment and Petition to NJC
However, the Chief Judge of Edo State reassigned the case to another judge to begin de novo, despite its advanced stage.
Igini, dissatisfied with the move, petitioned the NJC on November 5, 2024. In his petition, Igini highlighted delays by Imuse in filing his defence and described how the reassignment would unfairly benefit the first defendant while causing hardship to the other parties.
The NJC found merit in Igini’s petition and ruled in his favour, ordering the case to be returned to Justice Eboreime to continue from where it stopped. The NJC also issued a caution to the Chief Judge of Edo State, warning him against such discretionary misuse in future matters.
New NJC Policy Guidelines on Case Transfers
At its 108th meeting held on April 30, 2025, the NJC considered multiple petitions involving similar issues across the country. The Council noted the trend of judges transferring cases mid-trial, resulting in de novo proceedings that disadvantage litigants and jeopardise the integrity of evidence.
The new guidelines issued to all Heads of Courts, signed by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, directed that cases that have reached an advanced stage or are adjourned for judgment must not be transferred, regardless of petitions or complaints from any party.
The CJN also directed that judges transferred to new jurisdictions would no longer need to obtain a fiat to deliver judgments in already-heard matters.
Kekere-Ekun said that petitions against judicial officers would no longer automatically halt proceedings. Instead, each case will be assessed on its own merit by the respective Head of Court.
The circular urged all Heads of Courts to circulate the guidelines to all judicial officers within their jurisdictions to promote fairness, efficiency, and confidence in the justice system.
It said, “Henceforth, matters that have reached an advanced stage or have been adjourned for judgment should not be transferred, irrespective of complaint by any of the parties.
“Whenever a Judicial Officer is on transfer, he should not be required to obtain a Fiat before delivering a pending judgment. Such a case should proceed automatically.
“Council also observed that once a petition was written against a Judicial Officer, he automatically stopped further hearing of the matter, until Council finally considered the petition. Council noted that it is not in all cases that a Judge will stop hearing a matter as a result of a petition against him. Accordingly, such matters should be assessed by all Heads of Courts and treated on a case-by-case basis.”
