HOW IMO GOVERNOR’S SYCOPHANTS MADE NIGERIAN LAWYERS “SEE IMO FINISH” LAST WEEKEND.

By Chinedu Agu

They say that a man who cuts off his nose to spite his face ultimately leaves himself with no face to show the world.

Last weekend, from 10 to 12 July 2026, the Imo State Government, in its infinite wisdom and boundless pettiness, did precisely that before lawyers representing 48 Branches across the nine states of the old Eastern Region. What ought to have been an opportunity for Imo State to redeem its battered image became a public spectacle of shame, a dance of institutional disgrace choreographed by officials who mistook arrogance for strength and political spite for statecraft.

The Eastern Bar Forum, EBF, came to Owerri. These were not inconsequential visitors. Among them were the President of the Nigerian Bar Association, Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN; the First Vice President, Sebastian Anyia; members of the National Executive Council from the old Eastern Region; leading figures in the legal profession, including Mike Ahamba, SAN; F.A. Onuzulike, SAN; Akajiugo Emeka Obegolu, SAN, and Monday Ubani, SAN; Adizua Okoroafor, SAN; John Aikpokpo-Martins; aspirants to the presidency of the NBA; and a formidable gathering of lawyers from Imo, Abia, Anambra, Enugu, Ebonyi, Rivers, Bayelsa, Akwa Ibom and Cross River States.

These are men and women whose voices shape the conversation around justice, governance and the rule of law in Nigeria. Imo State had a golden opportunity to demonstrate that the disturbing reports about its ailing justice system had been exaggerated. Instead, the Government chose to confirm those reports in bold and indelible letters.

As is customary at EBF functions, the Chief Judge of the host state organises the welcome cocktail on the day of arrival, while the Attorney-General hosts the dinner on the following day. But in Imo, where every independent institution and person now appears to be treated as an adversary, the Government withdrew its sponsorship of the Rockview Hotel hall, for which it had earlier undertaken to pay.

On the morning of the meeting, Saturday, 11 July 2026, EBF discovered that the Imo State Government had withdrawn from the arrangement and had allegedly instructed the management not to accept payment from the NBA, even if the Bar offered to pay for the venue itself. What followed was a frantic, last-minute effort to salvage the programme.

The breakfast, which was scheduled to hold at the venue between 7.00 a.m. and 9.00 a.m., had to be moved to the NBA Owerri Bar Centre. The principal meeting was subsequently relocated to Villa Garden Hotels. All this confusion unfolded only moments before the commencement of the programme.

The Attorney-General, Hon. Paul Obinatu, also cancelled the dinner he had prepared to host that evening. In doing so, the Government washed its institutional dirty linen in public and invited the entire Eastern Bar to inspect the stains.

What was the Government’s grievance?

At the Friday cocktail held at the B. A. Njemanze Pavilion on arrival date of 10 July 2026, the EBF accorded due recognition to Hon. Justice I. O. Agugua as the Acting Chief Judge of Imo State. That simple act of institutional courtesy appeared to have provoked the Government’s displeasure.

For context, the Attorney-General had written to the Governor of the Eastern Bar Forum and copied all the Chairmen of the six NBA Branches in Imo State [Owerri, Mbaise, Mbano/Etiti, Okigwe, Orlu and Oru/Oguta] declaring that the tenure of the Acting Chief Judge had expired and that no correspondence should be addressed to her, particularly in connection with the EBF programme.

The Attorney-General’s letter was dated 8 July 2026. It came after the letter of the National Judicial Council, dated 30 June 2026, communicating to the Governor the extension of the Acting Chief Judge’s tenure.

His letter reads:

“I write to acknowledge with appreciation your letter of invitation to the former Ag. Chief Judge and brother Judges of Imo State to the Eastern Bar Forum second quarterly meeting scheduled to hold in Owerri from 9th to 11th July, 2026.

“It is with due sense of duty and respect and in preservation of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended, I bring to your notice that the tenure of office of the immediate past Acting Chief Judge of Imo State, Hon. Justice I. O. Agugua elapsed on the 26th day of June, 2026. Since this expiration of the tenure of office as the Acting Chief Judge, it has not been brought to my notice that either her tenure of office has been extended or that a new Acting Chief Judge has been appointed by His Excellency, Senator Hope Odidika Uzodimma, CON, GSGI, GSSRS.

“In view of the foregoing therefore, it becomes glaringly apparent without more to state that the office of the Chief Judge of Imo State is presently vacant. There is therefore no substantive or acting Chief Judge to receive your invitation and/or host your proposed cocktail or attend the opening ceremony on behalf of the Imo State Judiciary.

“With respect to the foregoing, any inconvenience this vacuum may cause your program of events is regretted. It is appreciated the courtesy you extended to Imo State Judiciary. It is however demanded that the invitation extended to the former acting Chief Judge be withdrawn forthwith as we honestly believed it was done in error.

“We believe that the vacuum created by the expiration of office may be filled in no distant time in compliance with the due process of law.

“Please accept the assurances of my highest regards.

“PAUL OBINATU ESQ.
HON. ATTORNEY-GENERAL/
COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE.”

The National Judicial Council had, by its communication to the Governor dated 30 June 2026, made it clear that the acting appointment of Hon. Justice I. O. Agugua had been extended. The Council recalled that it had earlier approved a three-month extension running from 26 March to 26 June 2026 and had also resolved that, if the process of appointing a substantive Chief Judge remained inconclusive at the expiration of that period, the acting appointment would be further extended.

Since the process for the appointment of a substantive Chief Judge had not been concluded, the NJC accordingly extended Hon. Justice Agugua’s tenure for another three months, from 26 June to 26 September 2026, pursuant to the relevant constitutional provisions. The legal position was therefore neither uncertain nor ambiguous: as of 8 July 2026, when the Attorney-General issued his contrary letter, the NJC had already communicated that her acting appointment remained valid.

Let us dissect the legal impudence demonstrated by the Attorney-General with the cold knife of the law.

The Attorney-General’s letter is remarkable, not for its fidelity to the Constitution, but for the constitutional confusion it exposes. The Attorney-General is the Chief Law Officer of the State. His primary responsibility is not to advance the political preferences of the Executive, but to provide sound, independent and constitutionally grounded legal advice.

Yet, in this instance, he adopted a position that had already been overtaken by the decision of the National Judicial Council, the constitutional body entrusted with critical responsibilities concerning judicial appointments and discipline. The inevitable consequence was to place the Executive Government of Imo State on a collision course with the institution established to safeguard the integrity and independence of the judiciary.

The most disturbing feature of the letter is not merely that its conclusion was legally questionable. It is that the Attorney-General purported to declare, with complete constitutional certainty, that the office of the Chief Judge of Imo State was vacant.

That was not a determination for the Attorney-General to make by administrative proclamation.

Whether an Acting Chief Judge remains in office after the expiration of an initial tenure is not a matter to be conclusively determined by the Attorney-General’s personal opinion. It is determined by the Constitution and the legally relevant recommendation or decision of the National Judicial Council acting within its constitutional sphere.

Once the NJC resolved to extend the acting appointment pending the conclusion of the process for appointing a substantive Chief Judge, the Attorney-General’s personal knowledge or claimed ignorance of that resolution could not extinguish its constitutional significance. Constitutional authority does not disappear merely because a public officer says that the relevant communication has not been brought to his attention.

Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Attorney-General had genuinely not seen the NJC’s letter of 30 June 2026, elementary prudence demanded verification rather than proclamation. A Chief Law Officer confronted with uncertainty concerning the status of the head of the judiciary ought first to have established the true legal position by consulting Government House, the Office of the Acting Chief Judge or the National Judicial Council.

Instead, he issued an official directive to the legal community, declaring the existence of a constitutional vacuum that had already been addressed by the institution empowered to speak to the matter. That is not cautious legal advice. It is an extraordinary failure of verification with grave constitutional consequences.

More troubling still was the scope of the directive. The Attorney-General did not merely express a legal opinion. He demanded that the invitation extended to the Acting Chief Judge be withdrawn “forthwith,” thereby attempting to determine whom the Nigerian Bar Association and the Eastern Bar Forum could recognise or engage as the head of the Imo State Judiciary.

That was an astonishing assertion of executive authority over judicial affairs. The Executive cannot determine the identity or status of the head of the judiciary merely through correspondence from the Ministry of Justice. Such questions must be resolved in accordance with the Constitution and the constitutional processes governing judicial appointments.

The irony is impossible to ignore. The Attorney-General invoked the need to preserve the Constitution, yet the effect of his intervention was to unsettle the institutional boundaries established by that same Constitution.

Constitutional preservation requires respect for the roles assigned to the respective organs and institutions of government. By taking a position inconsistent with the communicated resolution of the National Judicial Council, the letter created the impression that the Executive Government of Imo State could decline to recognise an NJC-supported continuation in office whenever such recognition did not suit its immediate political preference.

The letter therefore did more than embarrass the legal advisory machinery of Imo State. It exposed the State Government to avoidable constitutional criticism and conveyed to the Nigerian Bar Association, the Eastern Bar Forum, judicial officers and the wider public that the Executive Government was prepared to contest or disregard the constitutional processes governing the leadership of the judiciary.

That was not merely a legal miscalculation. It was a spectacular constitutional own goal dispatched, almost theatrically, with a bicycle kick.

One is left with two deeply troubling possibilities. Either the Attorney-General issued a far-reaching constitutional directive without first establishing the true legal position, in which case the basic standard of diligence expected of the State’s Chief Law Officer was not met; or the relevant authorities were already aware of the NJC’s position but proceeded in spite of it, in which case the letter assumes the character of an instrument of conscious constitutional defiance.

Neither possibility inspires confidence in the quality or independence of the legal guidance available to the Government of Imo State.

The greatest casualty of this episode is not the reputation of any individual public officer, but the institutional integrity of the Imo State Judiciary. Every unnecessary confrontation between Government House and the National Judicial Council diminishes public confidence in the administration of justice. Every attempt to substitute executive preference for constitutional procedure weakens judicial independence.

The Attorney-General should ordinarily be the first defender of constitutional boundaries. In this unfortunate episode, however, the office appeared to have become the vehicle through which those boundaries were tested.

A State whose Chief Law Officer helps to manufacture the appearance of a judicial vacuum where the NJC had already communicated an extension is standing dangerously close to constitutional disorder. God save Imo State!

Compare this disgrace with what lawyers witnessed in Abia State. When the EBF met in Umuahia in January 2026 [see my article posted on Facebook on 31 January 2026, titled “Abia, Too, Has Left Us Behind”], the difference was as clear as night and day.

There, lawyers witnessed genuine synergy between the Executive and the Judiciary, not the master-servant relationship that increasingly appears to define the Imo experience, but a harmonious partnership founded on mutual respect for institutional boundaries.

The Chief Judge and the Attorney-General worked seamlessly. Projects were visible. The Bench appeared vibrant and independent, yet capable of productive institutional collaboration. Hospitality was extended naturally and without the stench of political interference.

The Abia State Government clothed itself in dignity, rolled out the red carpet for visiting lawyers and demonstrated that a state can prosper when its justice sector is treated as a partner in development rather than as conquered territory. Abia has left us behind, not merely in infrastructure, but in the basic maturity of governance.

In Imo, rather than rolling out the red carpet, we scattered thorns and broken bottles along the path.

This is like the proverbial animal roasting over the fire, watching its own fat drip into the flames and imagining that it is extinguishing the fire, oblivious to the fact that it is being consumed. The Government’s praise singers have become like the lizard that disrupted its own mother’s funeral, so desperate to impress the master that it disgraced the entire household before visitors.

Like the foolish man who spits into the sky, everything eventually returns to his own face. Like the man who cuts off his nose to spite his face, the Government of Imo State now stands wounded by the very injury it intended for others.

Hon. Uche Ogbuagu, in one of the volumes of his comedy series titled Bad Condition, told the story of a teenager accused of raping an adult woman. A female lawyer, apparently persuaded by his seeming innocence in court, offered to defend him pro bono.

During the defence, she pulled down his shorts, held his manhood demonstratively and asked the court, “How on earth can this little thing rape an adult?” The boy immediately rebuked her within the hearing of everyone present: “Aunty lawyer, handle my manhood with care. Once it rises, it causes havoc and will not look at anyone’s face.”

According to the story, that single declaration destroyed the defence that his own lawyer had painstakingly constructed.

That is what the handlers of Imo State have accomplished through this episode. Like the boy whose innocence was being projected before the court, they destroyed their own case by their own words and conduct.

The Igbo proverb teaches that the foolishness of the man who attempts to pull down an iroko tree by shaking it is that, in the end, he succeeds only in shaking his own buttocks. That is the condition of Imo today. Every attempt to humiliate the Judiciary and the Bar has merely exposed the State Government to public ridicule.

The justice sector in Imo State is gasping for breath. Without diminishing the integrity of those members of the lower Bench who continue to distinguish themselves honourably, there are growing concerns that executive influence over the lower courts manifests in questionable case assignments and the troubling handling of politically sensitive matters.

That is one man down!

What appears to remain standing is the High Court Bench, although that is not to suggest that all is well there. This is the reason my recent #BenchMustNotBow movement must continue until stability, independence and constitutional order are fully restored to the Imo State Judiciary with the appointment of the most suitable as the substantive Chief Judge.

The office of the Acting Chief Judge is under siege. In this episode, the office of the Attorney-General appeared politically compromised.

Imolites, lawyers, civil society organisations and all lovers of justice must resist the complete subjugation of the justice sector. We cannot permit the last remaining independent institution to fall. We must speak. We must resist. We must demand a judiciary that serves the people and the Constitution, not the political convenience of Government House.

Silence in the face of this level of institutional mediocrity and executive overreach is complicity.

Last weekend, lawyers from across the East saw Imo finish. They saw sabotage. They saw hostility.

When the head is diseased, the entire body suffers. The tortoise announces that it is embarking upon a long journey but forgets that such a journey requires strong legs. Our institutional legs are broken, yet we continue to boast that we are ready to run.

Enugu showed us what a functioning state looks like. Abia showed us institutional synergy. Imo is showing the world how to finish last with noise, drama and fanfare.

• Chinedu Agu, a Notary Public and former Secretary of NBA Owerri, ezeomeaku@gmail.com

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this article are entirely those of the author

(C) CITY LAWYER Magazine. All rights reserved. To join our Channel, click here. Click here to join our WhatsApp chatroom. Contact us at citylawyermag@gmail.com or 081-3838-0083