Court gavel
PATRICK ABANG, Calabar –
The lingering crises facing the Ohanaze Ndigbo in Cross River State has taken a new dimension as a High Court sitting in Calabar has adjourned hearing of the matter between parties in the tussle for leadership of Ohaneze Ndigbo in the State.
The matter came up before justice Bassey Ebuta, of Court 3 who adjourned it to February 24.
In charge N0: HC/82c/2022 between the Inspector General Of Police IGP, respondent and Ugoji Nwabueze Esq., defendant , the court adjourned the case for hearing till February 24.
In a motion on notice brought before the court, counsel to defendant (Nwabueze), Prof. Jacob Dada, stated that the hearing of the matter could have amounted to abuse of court process.
Nwabueze (defendant) in the case was dragged to court by the Inspector General of Police, IGP, for “parading” himself and “impersonating” to be the President General of Ohaneze Ndigbo, Cross River State ,based on a petition written by a section of some Igbo leaders and allegedly sponsored by some members from a “faction” of the same group (Ohanaze Ndigbo).
It would be recalled that Nwabueze, who was a Vice President of Ohaneze Ndigbo in Cross River State assumed the position of President General after the demise of his predecessor which was in tandem with their constitution.
Findings however showed that months later, some of his kinsmen wanted him to step aside alluding that he was no longer suitable for the position.
Also, his refusal to step aside got the “faction” infuriated and they headed to court in a bid to totally stop Nwabueze and ensure he no longer presents himself as President General of Ohaneze Ndigbo,Cross River State.
Speaking with journalists shortly after the matter was heard at the court, Dada said due process was not followed in the “attempt” to arraign his client.
His words :”There are things which should have been done before defendant is arraigned. Those things which should have been done, were not done accordingly.
“Significantly for instance, notice of trial ought to have been prepared or issued. It has not been prepared, let alone issued on the defendant.” Dada stated.
Dada who further explained why the matter could not be heard, said: “There is no way the defendant who is not aware of where he will be arraigned, will make himself available for arraignment.
“The law is that anybody accused of infraction should be given fair hearing amongst others.
“You cannot say he was given opportunity to be heard when the venue of the hearing was not known to him.”Dada stated.
However, Prosecuting Counsel, Barr. Alex Ewa, declined making any comment when he was asked to give insight into the matter.
