A judgment creditor has asked the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja to restrain the Judicial Service Committee of the Federal Capital Territory and the National Judicial Council from screening, recommending or presenting the Director of Enforcement of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Mr. Chukwuemeka Tony Ubani, for appointment as a judge of that court.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/2026-IDRI-Masterclass.png")
The action is brought by Bizplus Consulting Services Limited, acting through its officer and authorised representative, Dr. Maurice Ibe, in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/2174/2026, filed on 11 September 2026.
The defendants are Mr. Ubani, the Judicial Service Committee of the Federal Capital Territory, the National Judicial Council and the Attorney-General of the Federation.
The originating summons is brought pursuant to section 251(1)(q) and (r) of the 1999 Constitution, Order 3 Rules 6 and 7 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019 and the inherent jurisdiction of the court, and states that the plaintiff claims to be aggrieved by “the administrative subversion, institutional inconsistency, and lack of transparency” of the first defendant.
The summons poses four questions.
The first is whether, having regard to section 153(1)(i) and paragraph 21(c) of the Third Schedule to the Constitution and to the Revised NJC Guidelines and Procedural Rules for the Appointment of Judicial Officers, the second and third defendants can validly screen, recommend or advance his appointment as a judge while “a serious, formal administrative petition touching directly on his institutional integrity, candour and fitness for judicial office is pending unresolved before the appointing authorities.”
The second is whether, having regard to what the plaintiff describes as the mandatory internal administrative workflow of the court, “which strictly bars the Director of Enforcement from mobilizing police assistance unless the Honourable Chief Judge has first signed a formal written approval,” his “informal, back-channel telephone disclaimer” denying authorisation for an execution on 4 September 2026 at United Bank for Africa Plc does not constitute “a wilful countermand of his own Head of Court’s judicial directive or an act of administrative deception.”
The third is whether his actions between 4 May 2026, when he is said to have certified in a signed dispatch that no adverse legal impediments existed against the judgment sum, and the telephone disclaimer of 4 September 2026, do not violate “the absolute threshold of high moral character, transparency, and consistency mandatory for elevation to the Bench.”
The fourth is whether it is compatible with public order, administrative accountability and the institutional sanctity of the judiciary for the second and third defendants to elevate a candidate whose disclaimers, it is said, exposed specialised tactical units of the Nigeria Police Force to “extreme operational risks and legal liabilities.”
The Reliefs Sought
The plaintiff seeks a declaration that strict adherence to administrative workflows, institutional honesty and absolute transparency are non-negotiable prerequisites for elevation to the Bench of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory.
It seeks a further declaration that the telephone disclaimer constitutes “a severe breach of administrative integrity and institutional sabotage that disqualifies him from judicial appointment.”
It asks for an order directing the Committee and the Council “to completely freeze, halt, and suspend any ongoing or future screening, shortlisting, interviewing, evaluation, or recommendation” of the first defendant pending the final determination of the suit and the conclusive resolution of the pending administrative petition.
It also seeks a perpetual injunction restraining both bodies from forwarding or submitting his name to the President for appointment as a High Court judge “unless and until he is completely cleared of the allegations of administrative subversion by an independent inquiry.”
The Grounds
The grounds are set out under five heads.
Under constitutional prerequisites for appointment, the plaintiff contends that section 153 and paragraph 21(c) of the Third Schedule, together with the Revised NJC Guidelines, mandate that only individuals of unblemished moral character, absolute administrative transparency and flawless ethical standing may be considered or recommended for elevation.
Under pending and unresolved character challenge, it contends that it has a formal petition actively pending before the Committee and the Council challenging the first defendant’s integrity and candour, “which by law must be fully investigated and determined before the 1st Defendant can be advanced in any judicial selection process.”
Under subversion of judicial workflow rules, it contends that by the established workflow of the court he could not have requested police enforcement assistance on 4 May 2026 without the express prior written authorisation of the Chief Judge, so that his subsequent telephone disclaimer “reveals an administrative countermand of his own Head of Court’s directives or a severe deception of law enforcement authorities.”
Under creation of severe institutional risks, it contends that the unrecorded, mid-stream disclaimer, synchronised with the resistance of the bank, aborted a valid court execution and exposed an armed tactical unit to operational vulnerability and legal liability.
Under irremediable institutional injury, it contends that if he is recommended or elevated while those questions remain unresolved, it will inflict permanent damage on public trust, public order and the sanctity of the judiciary.
The Motion For Interlocutory Injunction
Filed with the summons is a motion on notice for an interlocutory injunction, brought under Order 26 Rules 1 and 2 of the Rules and the inherent jurisdiction of the court.
It seeks an order restraining the Committee and the Council, whether by themselves, their organs, committees, members, officers, servants or agents, from further screening, interviewing, shortlisting, evaluating, recommending or presenting the first defendant to any authority for elevation or appointment, pending the final hearing and determination of the originating summons.
It seeks a further order that where such screening, interviewing, shortlisting, evaluating or recommending has already taken place or been concluded, “the legal effect, operation, and enforcement of same be suspended or frozen forthwith,” and the implementation of any step arising from it stayed.
It also seeks an order restraining the first defendant himself from presenting himself to the Committee or the Council, or taking any further step to advance his candidacy for elevation.
Among the grounds, the plaintiff states that “a dynamic and precautionary order freezing the legal effects of any steps already taken is necessary to protect the subject matter of this suit from being destroyed or overtaken by swift administrative actions before the court hears the application,” that the balance of convenience favours it, and that it is willing to enter into an undertaking to pay damages should the application be found to be frivolous.
The Affidavit
The application is supported by a twenty-one paragraph affidavit deposed to by Dr. Maurice Ibe and sworn at the Federal High Court Registry, Abuja, on 11 September 2026.
He deposes that the plaintiff is a judgment creditor in Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/3693/2025, Bizplus Consulting Services Ltd & Anor v Government of Benue State & Anor, in which a garnishee order absolute was issued by the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory on 4 December 2025.
He deposes that in compliance with internal workflow rules, which he says mandate that the Director of Enforcement can only activate law enforcement assistance after the Chief Judge has appended written clearance, the first defendant issued a formal official letter on 4 May 2026 requesting police assistance to execute the judgment, “explicitly certifying that no adverse legal impediments existed against the judgment sum.”
On 4 September 2026, he deposes, tactical officers from the Police Intelligence Response Team accompanied the plaintiff’s representatives to execute the court order at United Bank for Africa Plc, on the strength of the judicial warrants and the mobilisation request.
The bank, he says, resisted the execution “by advancing its own interpretations of a Court of Appeal status quo order, forcing the tactical operation to be stood down temporarily to maintain public peace.”
The Meeting At Force Headquarters
He deposes that following the suspension of the execution, the management of the plaintiff attended a physical meeting with the Principal Staff Officer to the Inspector-General of Police to address the operational bottleneck.
“During the course of that meeting, the Principal Staff Officer explicitly revealed to the Applicant’s management that when the standoff occurred at the bank premises, the 1st Respondent was called over the telephone and, upon being spoken to, the 1st Respondent disclaimed the approval for the operation, asserting that he did not authorize the specific enforcement exercise,” the affidavit states.
He deposes that the disclaimer “directly countermanded the workflow clearance of his own Head of Court and the clear representations contained in his own formal official dispatch of 4 May 2026,” and that by mobilising an armed tactical unit to a commercial entity and then withdrawing administrative cover “via an unrecorded telephone disavowal,” he exposed armed officers to severe operational risks, public embarrassment and legal liability.
Prompted by what he describes as a deep breach of administrative honesty and candour, he says, the plaintiff submitted a formal administrative petition against the first defendant to the Committee and the Council, which remains pending and unresolved.
He adds that he has reliable information and reasonably believes it to be true that the first defendant “is currently undergoing active shortlisting, screening, and consideration” by the Committee and the Council for elevation to the Bench.
Counsel
The processes are signed by Dr. D. A. Awosika, SAN, with Mr. Ndubuisi Oko Ukpai, Mr. Chukwunonso Akah, Mr. Ramsey Omego and Mr. Chimezie C. Enuka, of D. A. Awosika SAN & Partners, Ikeja, Lagos, with an address within jurisdiction at Sower and Messuarius Solicitors, Maitama, Abuja.
The allegations set out above are those of the plaintiff and have not been determined by any court or by either of the judicial bodies named. The first defendant has not been heard on them, no finding has been made against him, and the suit and the motion are pending.
The name Ubani Tony Chukwuemeka, of Abia State, appears at number three on a document headed “List of Candidates” which has been circulating among lawyers and which sources have described as the shortlist for judicial appointment to the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory. Neither the Judicial Service Committee of the Federal Capital Territory nor the National Judicial Council has confirmed the authenticity of that document, and no shortlist has been published by either body.
The plaintiff is also the first respondent in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/CV/1713/2025 at the Court of Appeal, in which the Government of Benue State is the appellant and which arises from the same judgment and garnishee proceedings.
[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
Available now for NGN 40,000 at ASC Publications, 10, Boyle Street, Onikan, Lagos. Beside High Court, TBS. Email publications@ayindesanni.com or WhatsApp +2347056667384. Purchase Link: https://paystack.com/buy/evidence-act-complete-annotation
______________________________________________________________________ “Enhance Legal Practice With Authoritative Reports” — Alexander Payne Offers Comprehensive Law Reports, Spanning Over A Century Of Nigerian Jurisprudence
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
