Re Agulu Town Union Crisis: How Justice Onunkwo Of Anambra State, Issued Injunction For A Case Pending Before Another Court, Lawyer Petition CJ: Setting The Records Straight In Defence Of A Reticent Judiciary

By Henry Chibuike Ugwu, LL.M.

To protect the dignity of the judiciary in Nigeria, judges have a stringent code of conduct that proscribes them from getting immersed in commentaries and debates in the media space, even when calculated and unjustified publications are made to impugn the integrity of a member of the judiciary.

In a publication titled ‘Agulu Town Union Crisis: How Justice Onunkwo of Anambra State, Issued Injunction for a case pending before another Court, Lawyer petition CJ’[1], which was published on 28^th December, 2021, by BarristerNG.com, it was stated that an Anambra-based legal practitioner- James Akoh Esq., had petitioned the Chief Judge of Anambra State High Court against Hon. Justice R.O. Onunkwo, for issuing an injunction in a case where the judgment was pending in another High Court division presided by Hon. Justice G.C. Anulude. It was also stated that Hon. Justice R.O. Onunkwo had colluded with the Plaintiff’s counsel in Suit No. NN/183/2021, to the detriment of the Defendants.

The publication, which has since gone viral, was stimulated by a petition dated 24^th December, 2021, and styled ‘Petition Against His Lordship, Hon. Justice R.O. Onunkwo for Denying our Clients their Constitutional Right to Fair Hearing by Granting an Ex parte Order for Interim Injunction in Suit No: NN/183/2021 Between Hon. Sylvester Okeke v. Sir Onyebuchi Okpala & 3 Ors.’ The petition which was signed by James Akoh Esq., emanated from the law office of Awuka, Okafor and Partners, whose principal – Kingsley Awuka, Esq., represents Defendants in Suit No. NN/183/2021.

I have known Hon. Justice R.O. Onunkwo for many years, especially since he presides over High Court 2, Ihiala, a jurisdiction where I had served as a former executive of the NBA, Ihiala Branch, and I have appeared severally as counsel before that court. I was extremely disconcerted and surprised when I came across the aforementioned publication and petition which was deliberately engineered to go viral for obvious reasons. I decided to acquaint myself with all the relevant facts and I read all Rulings in issue so I can form a position that would not be influenced by the publication and letter. Having taken those steps, I can state authoritatively that the petition from Awuka, Okafor and Partners was misguided and unfounded. The publication that followed also reflected the unfounded sentiments in the petition and is unfairly prejudicial to the High Court of Anambra State and Hon. Justice R.O. Onunkwo, whose moral rectitude and brilliance cannot reasonably be called into question by those who have appeared before him.

Since the judiciary is reticent, customarily, and would not dive into conversations of this nature, it is important that the facts of everything that transpired and informed the baseless petition (including all the relevant Rulings of the court) be availed the public, so we can all avert the danger of a single story. The relevant facts of the case are provided as follows:

1. On the 23^rd December, 2021, an ex parte application (No. NN/593m/2021) in Suit No. NN/183/2021 was moved by one Kaine Ananwune, Esq., holding the brief of Alex Ejesieme SAN praying the court for an order of interim injunction restraining the Defendants from organizing and conducting any election to elect any national officers for Agulu People’s Union or its youth wing (which elections were scheduled to hold on the 27^th and 30^th of December, 2021) pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice filed in the suit.
2. The institution of Suit No. NN/183/2021 and the filing of the motion ex parte for interim injunction that subsequently followed were propelled by correspondences tendered as Exhibit H before the Court. In those correspondences, two members of the Caretaker Committee constituted by Anambra State Government functioning as Chairman and Secretary, respectively, of the Caretaker Committee for the Agulu People’s Union, indicated that Agulu People’s Union election would hold on the 30th of December, 2021.
3. However, before the institution of Suit No. NN/183/2021, certain persons who were elected as national officers of the Caretaker Committee for Agulu People’s Union at an election held on the 30^th December, 2020, had instituted a suit at the Neni High Court in Suit No. NN/64/2021, against the Governor of Anambra State, the Commissioner for Local Government, Chieftaincy and Community Affairs, and three other named Defendants, who were sued in a representative capacity. The unnamed Defendants covered by the representative suit were other members of the Caretaker Committee of Agulu People’s Union. The suit was instituted on the 15^th June, 2021, and was heard on the 16^th December, 2021. Consequently, the suit was adjourned to the 3^rd February, 2022 for judgment. The grouse of the Plaintiffs in Suit No. NN/64/2021, pertained to the cancellation of the election of National Officers of the Agulu People’s Union which was held on the 30^th December, 2020; and the legality of the constitution of the Caretaker Committee for the Agulu People’s Union by Anambra State Government.
4. While the suit instituted at the High Court sitting at Neni was still pending, the Defendants in this present suit (i.e., Suit No. NN/183/2021) signified that election into the various offices of the Agulu People’s Union would hold on the 30^th December, 2021. It was, for this reason, Plaintiff in Suit No. NN/183/2021, as Applicant, approached the court by way of motion ex parte, praying the court to make an order of interim injunction restraining the Defendants from conducting the election.
5. After Hon. Justice R.O. Onunkwo had meticulously considered the application on the merit, he made an order of interim injunction restraining the Defendants as prayed, consistent with Order 40 Rule 3(3) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules of Anambra State, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice for an order of interlocutory injunction or until further order. He then adjourned the hearing of the said motion on notice to the 29^th December, 2021, for hearing. Please find attached a copy of the Ruling of the court in ex parte application No. NN/593m/2021.
6. Now on the 28^th of December, 2021, rather than Kingsley Awuka, Esq. or any of the counsel in his law office, to prepare his counter for the motion on notice coming up the following day (29^th December, 2021), his office decided to make the aforementioned petition dated 24^th December, 2021, to go viral and be published online.
7. On 29^th December, 2021, Kingsley Awuka, Esq., of counsel, made an oral application praying the court to discharge the ex parte order of interim injunction made on 23^rd December, 2021. He admitted that the Defendants were served with the processes on the 24th of December, 2021. He contended that the Defendants/Respondents have not had any working day within which to respond to the application and argued that the same is not ripe for hearing. He maintained that the application for the grant of the interim order of injunction was made only two days to the event the order sought to be restrained relates. He also argued that the Plaintiff was guilty of delay in bringing the application and that the facts, as demonstrated, did not show that there was real urgency. He, therefore, urged His lordship to discharge and/or vacate the ex parte order of interim injunction.
8. Learned senior counsel, Alex Ejesieme, SAN appeared for the Plaintiff/Applicant. He argued that until the expiration of the 7-day period, the court cannot entertain an application to vary or set aside the order. He also contended that every application must be in writing and supported by an affidavit and contended further that the Defendants must bring a formal application to set aside or vacate the interim order. He finally concluded his reply by contending that the jurisdiction of the court has not been activated concerning taking further steps against the interim order. He then urged the court to hold that the interim order is still valid and subsisting.
9. In response, Kingsley Awuka, Esq., submitted that the grant or refusal of the type of application he made in relation to the discharge of interim order rests on the discretion of the court. He also contended that where there is a misstatement of fact, the court will discharge an ex parte order without waiting for the lifespan of the order to run its course.
10. The oral application made by Kingsley Awuka, Esq., failed and was dismissed. The court held that the interim order of court made on 23^rd December, 2021, is lawful and reaffirmed the validity of the order. Kindly find attached the well-considered Ruling of 29^th December,2021.
11. The motion for interlocutory injunction was heard on 6th January, 2022, after both counsel had moved their respective applications before the court on all vital issues. Some of the core points raised at the hearing were as follows:

a. The Plaintiff’s Counsel raised the issue that the counter affidavit filed in opposition to the application altered the capacity in which the Defendants were sued in the action. He said the counter affidavit constitutes an invalid process.

b. The Defendants/Respondents in their counter affidavit alluded to the fact that the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction is an abuse of court process. The deponent of that counter affidavit created the impression that the cause of action in the present suit, i.e. Suit No. NN/183/2021 is the same as the cause of action litigated in Suit No. NN/64/2021.

12. On the issue of the abuse of court process, the Court found that both suits are not the same as the cause of action in Suit No. NN/64/2021 was rooted in the legality, the propriety, and the validity of the constitution of a Caretaker Committee by the Government of Anambra State without affording the Plaintiffs in that action an opportunity of fair hearing; while in Suit No. NN/183/2021, the cause of action was predicated on the competence of the reconstituted Caretaker Committee to organize and conduct an election into the various offices in the Agulu People’s Union. The court carefully considered the evidence on both sides and made an order for interlocutory injunction. Kindly find attached the Ruling on interlocutory Injunction delivered on the 6th of January, 2022.

Every legal practitioner who dispassionately interrogates the facts of this case and reads the Rulings of the Honourable Court- Hon. Justice R.O. Onunkwo would find, without incertitude, that the allegations of collusion and corruption of office made against the Court were done in utter bad faith and in a manner that exposed the Court to contempt. It is even worse where diligent members of the bench who are exposed to unsubstantiated allegations are incapable of joining the fray to exonerate themselves. Lawyers are ministers in the temple of justice; thus, we should be confined to high standards that represent the sanctity of our calling. We must refrain from publicly making unfounded claims against judicial officials as this will negatively affect the integrity of the bench.

Henry Chibuike Ugwu, LL.M.,

Partner, Clay & Amicus Solicitors.

[1] Bridget Edokwe, ‘Agulu Town Union Crisis: How Justice Onunkwo of Anambra State, Issued Injunction for a case pending before another Court, Lawyer petition CJ’(BarristerNG.com, 28 December 2021) <https://barristerng.com/agulu-town-union-crisis-how-justice-onunkwo-of-anambra-state-issued-injunction-for-a-case-pending-before-another-court-lawyer-petition-cj/> accessed 10 January 2022.