A significant legal battle unfolding in Nigeria’s Southeast has reached a critical juncture, as Justice Amina Mohammed of the Federal High Court, Awka Judicial Division, reserved judgment on Tuesday in a lawsuit aiming to disqualify Anambra State Governor, Professor Charles Soludo, from seeking re-election. The case, which also targets three of Soludo’s predecessors, hinges on allegations of constitutional violations tied to the governance of the state’s 21 local government areas. The court’s decision, expected on a yet-to-be-announced date, could reshape the political landscape in Anambra as the 2025 election cycle looms.
.jpg)
The Lawsuit’s Origins
The suit was filed by Dr. Ifeanyichukwu Okonkwo, an activist and former Anambra governorship aspirant, who accuses Governor Soludo of flouting Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution by administering local governments with unelected officials. Okonkwo’s legal challenge extends beyond Soludo, implicating former governors Dr. Chris Ngige, Peter Obi, and Willie Obiano, all of whom are alleged to have similarly bypassed democratic processes during their tenures. The plaintiff argues that such actions not only undermine the rule of law but also warrant severe penalties, including barring the accused from holding public office.
At the heart of the case is Section 7 of the Nigerian Constitution, which mandates that local governments be run by democratically elected councils. Okonkwo contends that Soludo and his predecessors relied instead on appointed transition chairmen and councilors, a practice he claims violates both the Constitution and a prior court ruling from 2006. That judgment, delivered by Justice Lewis Allagoa in suit FHC/EN/CS/90/2005, reportedly affirmed the illegality of unelected local governance—a ruling Okonkwo says has been ignored for nearly two decades.
The Courtroom Showdown
The hearing on Tuesday saw all parties present their final arguments before Justice Mohammed adjourned the matter for judgment. Okonkwo, representing himself, urged the court to uphold his written addresses, which center on a single question: whether the defendants’ persistent defiance of the 2006 ruling entitles him to seek additional remedies against the Federal Government and secure judicial orders to enforce constitutional governance. Citing legal precedents like Besong vs. Ochineke (2023) and Ajao vs. Alao (1986), he argued that the case rests not on disputed facts but on an unappealed, binding judgment. “The validity of a ruling stands unless challenged,” he asserted, referencing Oguebego vs. PDP (2016) to underscore the court’s duty to protect its own decisions.
Opposing counsel Peter Odili, a Senior State Counsel from the Anambra State Ministry of Justice, mounted a defense for Soludo and the other defendants. Odili filed a preliminary objection, asking the court to dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction, and argued that the plaintiff’s claims lack merit. He adopted written addresses challenging Okonkwo’s standing and the court’s authority to adjudicate, urging Justice Mohammed to strike out the summons entirely. Earlier in the proceedings, the judge had granted a motion allowing the defendants to regularize their counter-affidavits and other filings, setting the stage for the final showdown.
Broader Implications
The lawsuit seeks more than just Soludo’s disqualification. Okonkwo is demanding that the court bar Ngige, Obi, and Obiano from future public office and compel all defendants to account for funds allocated to Anambra’s local governments from 2006 to 2024. He has also requested exemplary damages of N100 billion, framing the case as a crusade to restore accountability and democratic norms. Named defendants include the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Anambra State Government, the state’s Attorney General, the Anambra State House of Assembly, the former governors, and Livinus Onyenwe, representing transition chairmen under Soludo’s administration.
As of March 07, 2025, the case has drawn intense scrutiny, given its potential to upend Anambra’s political status quo. Soludo, a former Central Bank Governor and prominent economist, has been a polarizing figure since taking office in 2022. His supporters laud his efforts to modernize the state, while critics, including Okonkwo, accuse him of perpetuating governance flaws inherited from past regimes. The inclusion of Ngige, Obi, and Obiano—each a heavyweight in Nigerian politics—further amplifies the stakes, raising questions about historical accountability.
A History of Contention
This is not Soludo’s first brush with legal challenges over his eligibility. In 2021, prior to his election as governor, a Federal High Court in Abuja dismissed a suit alleging he provided false information to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). Justice Taiwo Taiwo labeled that case “frivolous” and imposed a N2 million fine on the plaintiffs, reinforcing Soludo’s path to victory. The current lawsuit, however, strikes a different chord, focusing on governance practices rather than pre-election technicalities, and its reliance on a subsisting judgment could prove harder to dismiss.
Public and Political Reactions
The reserved judgment has sparked a flurry of reactions across Anambra and beyond. Pro-Soludo factions argue that the suit is a politically motivated attack aimed at derailing his re-election bid, pointing to Okonkwo’s past gubernatorial ambitions as evidence of bias. Critics of the governor, meanwhile, see the case as a long-overdue reckoning for a political class accused of sidelining grassroots democracy. Social media posts on X reflect this divide, with some users hailing Okonkwo’s activism and others decrying the litigation as a distraction from pressing state issues like infrastructure and security.
What Lies Ahead
Justice Mohammed’s forthcoming ruling will hinge on several factors: the court’s interpretation of the 2006 judgment, its jurisdiction over the matter, and the weight given to constitutional provisions versus practical governance realities. A decision favoring Okonkwo could trigger appeals and reshape local government administration nationwide, while a dismissal might embolden state executives to maintain the status quo.
As Anambra awaits the verdict, the case underscores broader tensions in Nigeria’s democracy—between legal ideals and political pragmatism, between past promises and present accountability. For now, all eyes remain on the Federal High Court in Awka, where a single ruling could redefine the future of one of Nigeria’s most dynamic states.
Post a Comment
0Comments