Enugu High Court Judge, Justice E.N. Oluedo Faces NJC Probe For Alleged Misconduct

Enugu High Court Judge, Justice E.N. Oluedo is set to face NJC probe for alleged misconduct.

NaijaOnPoint Nigeria reports that that the National Judicial Council (NJC) has acknowledged receipt of a petition against Justice E.N. Oluedo of the Enugu State High Court for alleged misconduct.

In its acknowledgment letter, the NJC confirmed that it is taking action on the petition, which accuses the judge of violating the Code of Conduct for Public Officers, as outlined in the Fifth Schedule to the Nigerian Constitution.

In a letter dated April 17, 2025 (Reference No. NJC/S.14/HC.EN/25/III/112), the Chief Justice of Nigeria and NJC Chairman, Justice Kudirat M.O. Kekere-Ekun, informed the petitioner, Dr. Ifeanyichukwu Okonkwo, that the matter is under review.

Okonkwo had accused Justice Oluedo of misconduct in handling Suit No. E/298C/2019 between the Federal Republic of Nigeria and himself.

Okonkwo, serving as the Liquidator of Ifemelunma and Company Nigeria Enterprises Limited, alleged that Justice Oluedo continued proceedings despite being aware of a pending appeal (Appeal No. CA/E/4C/2025) between the same parties at the Court of Appeal. He argued that this violated judicial protocol and showed bias.

On February 26, 2025, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) arraigned Okonkwo before Justice Oluedo on a one-count charge of fraud. Okonkwo pleaded not guilty and was permitted to continue under the bail terms previously granted by another judge.

Following his arraignment, Okonkwo issued a press statement questioning the EFCC’s competence in charging him under Section 6(b) of the EFCC Act, 2004. The charge alleged that he fraudulently converted N41 million received from one Onyishi Maduka Samuel, intended for the family of the late Joel Ifemelunma Okoye.

Citing Section 211(1) of the Constitution and several Supreme Court decisions—including Diamond Bank Plc v. Okpara (2018) and Maduagwu v. FRN (2025)—Okonkwo challenged both the EFCC’s authority and the High Court’s jurisdiction to prosecute him. He claimed that both the EFCC and the court registrar were duly served with notices of the pending appeal and a motion for stay of proceedings.

In his April 10, 2025 petition to the NJC, Okonkwo alleged that Justice Oluedo’s insistence on proceeding with the trial aimed to foist a fait accompli on the Court of Appeal, an act he described as judicial impertinence.

The petition was titled: “Petition against His Lordship Hon. Justice E.N. Oluedo for an Act bordering on Judicial Impertinence.”

A copy of the petition, seen by this reporter, outlined Okonkwo’s assertion that Justice Oluedo continued proceedings despite knowledge of the pending appeal.

On February 26, 2025, Okonkwo urged the court to stay proceedings based on due process and respect for the hierarchy of courts.

However, Justice Oluedo, after considering submissions from both Okonkwo and the prosecuting counsel, I.E. Ajobwele, overruled the objection. She cited the Enugu State Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL) 2017, stating that an interlocutory appeal does not automatically stay criminal proceedings.

Okonkwo countered that jurisdiction in criminal matters comes from Section 272(1) of the Constitution, not from procedural laws like the ACJL 2017.

He accused the judge of violating the principle that parties must be given full opportunity to present their case, referencing Western Steel Works Ltd. v. Iron and Steel Workers Union (1986).

He further argued that Nigerian law, citing State v. Ajayi (1996), allows interlocutory appeals and stay of proceedings in criminal trials. He emphasized that fairness and impartiality, observable by the public, were lacking in the judge’s handling of his case.

Citing Akinbobola v. Plisson Fisko (1991), Okonkwo maintained that a court has the power to rescind an order made without jurisdiction. He also referenced Olaseni v. Olaseni (2010), warning that disregarding an appellate court’s authority undermines the rule of law.

Finally, quoting Roman jurist Justinian—”Ignorantia judicis est calamitas innocentis”—Okonkwo warned that judicial ignorance risks inflicting irreversible injustice on innocent parties, stressing that a judge must remain current with the law to ensure fair judgment.

Related