By Pacasl Ibe
The Imo State House of Assembly has revealed that the embattled Chief Judge of the State, Hon Justice Theresa Chikeka sued the Assembly one hour after it’s had concluded resolution for her removal on July 17, 2024.
This latest disclosure by the house committee on Judiciary and Information chairman, Barr Ikenna Ihezuo on Saturday, followed a statement by Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Owerri branch few days ago.
In the statement, the Nigerian Bar Association, Owerri branch stated that the recommendation for the removal of the Chief judge of the State , Justice Theresa Chikeka was unconstitutional.
The Chairman and Secretary of the NBA Owerri branch, Chief Chris U. Ihentuge and Daniel O. Odiba noted that the hastened action by the Imo State House of Assembly purporting to recommend to the governor for the removal of the Chief Judge of Imo State, was unconstitutional.
The statement reads in part, ”We read the rather unfortunate and disturbing news of the purported recommendation of the Imo State House of Assembly for
the removal of the Chief Judge of Imo State, Hon Justice Theresa Chikeka.
It has been reported on various media platforms that the House of Assembly of Imo State, today the 17th July, 2024 voted in favour of the recommendations of the House adhoc committee for the removal of the Chief Judge and the same has been presented to the Governor.
”It was also confirmed that the House of Assembly had on Thursday, 11/7/2024 invited the Chief Judge to appear before the Adhoc Committee the following day of Friday the 12/7/2024 to answer to the petition written against His Lordship.
The Hon. Chief Judge responded to the invitation letter citing reasons for His Lordship’s non-appearance.
The disclosed that the Bar also independently investigated and verified that the Chief Judge, Hon. Justice T. E. Chikeka had approached the Federal High Court, Owerri in an action against the Attorney General of Imo State; Hon. Speaker, Imo State House of Assembly; Imo State House of Assembly and the National Judicial Council as the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants respectively.
”The Federal High Court issued an Order of Interim Injunction restraining the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants from inviting, or continuing to invite or summon the Chief Judge or in any manner,giving effect to the 3rd Defendant’s letter of invitation to the Chief Judge or howsoever
directing His Lordship to either appear before the 3rd Defendant or respond to any invitation from the House of Assembly pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice.
The NBA said it
confirmed that the irder was served on the House of Assembly.
Continuing, ”Against the foregoing background, the Executive Committee of the Bar promptly conveyed an expanded Advisory Committee meeting on Wednesday (17 of July, 2024) and resolved as follows:
1.That the hastened action by the Imo State House of Assembly purporting to recommend to the Governor for the removal of the Chief Judge of Imo State, is unconstitutional and against the now settled position of the law in ELELU-HABEEB & ANOR v. AG FEDERATION & ORS (2012) LPELR-15515 (SC) ,where the Supreme Court held inter alia that the removal of a Judicial
Officer including, the Chief Judge mustbe on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council.
2.That the Imo State House of Assembly must respect the principle of lis pendens and also obey the positive order of Interim Injunction of the Federal High Court in respect of the subject matter.
3.That the Bar as a defender of the Rule of Law, shall closely
monitor the unfolding events and react appropriately as the
situations and occasions may demand.
4.That the President of the Nigerian Bar Association, Y. C.Maikyau, OON, SAN be immediately briefed on these developments with a view to taking further actions.
”We shall keep members of the Bar and the public posted on further developments in this matter,” the statement concluded.
NBA Statement Embarrassing, Misconceived — Imo Assembly
In a statement on Saturday, the House of Assembly committee chairman on Judiciary and Information, Barr Ikenna Ihezuo lamented that the NBA resolution, with respect, is shocking, embarrassing, hasty, and misconceived as it creates the inevitable impression that the authors are not familiar with the provisions of the 1999 Constitution.
“The attention of the Imo State House of Assembly (Hereinafter referred to as “the House”) has been drawn to the *”RESOLUTION OF NIGERIAN BAR ASSOCIATION, OWERRI BRANCH, ON THE PURPORTED RECOMMENDATION OF THE IMO STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE CHIEF JUDGE OF IMO STATE”* published on 17th July 2024 and signed by the Chairman, Chief Chris U. Ihentuge and the Secretary, Daniel O. Odiba, ACArb.
“The House received a petition dated 14th June 2024 and signed by Comrade Ndubuisi Onyemaechi, Director of Investigation of Civil Society Engagement Platform (CSEP) with the caption “PETITION AGAINST THE CHIEF JUDGE OF IMO STATE, HON. JUSTICE THERESA CHUKWUEMEKA CHIKEKA FOR AGE FALSIFICATION, WHICH IS A GRAVE CRIMINAL OFFENCE AND AN ACT FOR WHICH MANY OTHER JUDGES AND SOME ARE CURRENTLY BEING PROSECUTED BY THE INDEPENDENT CORRUPT PRACTICES COMMISSION (ICPC)”.
“The petition above was referred to a Four Man Committee headed by Hon. Barr. Ikenna Ihezuo, Chairman, Committee on Judiciary and Information for proper investigation and detailed report, and for which the Honourable Chief Judge of Imo State, Hon. Justice Theresa Chukwuemeka Chikeka was invited amongst relevant persons and institutions.
“The Secretary to the Chief Judge of Imo State on 10th July 2024 refused to acknowledge the letter of invitation by the Committee dated 10th July 2024, addressed to the Chief Judge of Imo State with the excuse that she was not authorized to receive such a letter. The Committee made a phone call to His Lordship, and she was informed of the said letter. His Lordship promised to receive it personally in the office the next day. Thereafter, the Secretary to His Lordship, on 11th July 2024, accepted the said letter of invitation at 3.11p.m. As the Committee was waiting to receive His Lordship on Friday, 12th July 2024, the Committee received a letter from His Lordship dated 12th July 2024 with Reference No: JUD/CJ/S.65/I/225 with reasons for non appearance thus, “In my capacity as a serving Judicial Officer, the provisions of the guidelines of my office and the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (As Amended) do not permit me to appear before any Investigative Panel other than a panel set up by the National Judicial Council. I am not permitted to appear before your Committee, as my appearance will contravene these provisions”.
“In turning down the invitation, the Committee rightly assumed that His Lordship was fully aware of the legal consequences of declining to utilize the right to a fair hearing that the Committee extended to her but which she unequivocally rejected in WRITING.
“The other relevant bodies and institutions invited by the Committee are ;
i. The Petitioners, Civil Society Engagement Platform (CSEP), represented by Comrade Ndubuisi Onyemaechi, who owned up to the petition.
ii. The Head of Service, Imo State.
iii. The Secretary, Imo State Judicial Commission.
“The Secretary to the Council and Director of Administration, Legal Education, Nigerian Law School, Abuja.
“The Petitioners appeared before the Committee to defend the petition with documents and an oral presentation. The Imo State Judicial Service Commission’s Secretary appeared before the Committee and testified. The Committee received written responses from the Secretary to the Council of Legal Education and Director of Administration, Nigerian Law School, Abuja and the Head of Service, Imo State. They sent to the Committee the date of birth of His Lordship in their records, as provided by the Chief Judge at the point of entry to the Nigerian Law School and the Imo State Civil Service, respectively.
“The Committee, after its investigation, found out that the Chief Judge adjusted her date of birth from 27th October 1956 to 27th October 1958 vide a Sworn Declaration of Age dated 5th September 2006, wherein her date of birth was put at 27th October 1958, and which she submitted to the Judicial Service Commission and National Judicial Council at various times. The Committee found this, an act of misconduct, for which several judges and other public office holders were removed from office in Imo State and Nigeria.
“The Committee made its findings and recommendations. It presented them to the House. The House, in its sitting on 17th July 2024 and with more than two-thirds of Members present and voting at the session as required by Section 292 (1) (a) (ii) of the 1999 Constitution, adopted the recommendations of the Committee to wit;
* (i). That the Governor of Imo State should remove the Chief Judge of the State, Hon. Justice Theresa Ebere Chukwuemeka-Chikeka from office for misconduct pursuant to Section 292 (1) (a) (ii) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
* (ii). That the House Resolution on this issue be forwarded to the National Judicial Council (NJC) for further necessary action.
Ihezuo revealed the House committee was served with the suit in FHC/OW/CS/35/2024:�BETWEEN HON. JUSTICE THERESA CHUKWUEMEKA-CHIKEKA (the Chief Judge of Imo State) VS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF IMO STATE & 3 ORS at precisely 2.12 p.m. on Wednesday, 17 July 2024, after the House had concluded its resolution for the removal of the Chief Judge for misconduct in line with Section 292 (1) (a) (ii) of the 1999 Constitution and adjourned by 1.21 p.m. In other words, the 3rd Defendant was served after the House had passed its resolution and made it public.
He said there are plethora of cases to the effect that Courts do not restrain a completed act. The Supreme Court in IDEOZU VS OCHOMA (2006) 4 NWLR ( Pt. 970) 364 at 395, Per Tobi, JSC held thus ” … when a court is asked to restrain a party from doing an act pending the decision in a matter before it, but the act has been done, no order to restrain will be made. This is so because, what is sought to be prevented had happened. In other words, an interlocutory injunction is not a remedy to for an act, which has already been carried out. ”
“The principle of lis pendens does not apply in this regard, as the act was completed before the interim order was served.
“ It is important to note that the interim order of courtinter alia *”restrained the Defendants, especially the 3rd Defendant (the Imo State House of Assembly) from inviting or continuing to invite or summon the Plaintiff/Applicant or in any manner giving effect to the 3rd Defendant’s letter of invitation to the Plaintiff/Applicant dated 10th of July, 2024…”*
“The Chief Judge knew the full implications of rejecting the invitation by the Committee of the Imo State House of Assembly to give her a fair hearing; the House had absolutely no need to extend further invitations) to her.
“It is utterly disheartening that the Nigerian Bar Association, Owerri Branch, never contacted the House for its side of the story but only spoke to the Chief Judge, Imo State, before coming to its very wrong and regrettable conclusion. Why would a body of lawyers not adhere to the doctrine of Audi Alteram Partem? It is obvious that they were in a hurry not only to play to the gallery but also to condemn the House of Assembly without proper investigation.
Ihezuo concluded that the resolution of the House is now before the Governor and the National Judicial Council to take whatever action they deem fit.
The committee said the learned gentiemen of the Owerri NBA, with utmost respect, misconceived the facts and principle of law in the case of ELELU-HABEEB & ANOR. V AG FEDERATION & ORS. (2012) LPELR–15515 (SC) which they cited and relied on in their said publication.
Background
The Chief Judge had been accused of claiming in an affidavit, she sworn on September 6, 2006, that she was born on October 27, 1958, against what she had claimed before 2006. Some relevant documents had shown that she had claimed her date of birth, as October 27, 1956.
In a Petition to the Speaker of the lmo State House of Assembly, dated June 5, 2024, written by the CIVIL SOCIETY ENGAGEMENT PLATFORM and signed by its director of investigation, Comrade Ndubuisi Onyewuchi, the Petitioners had claimed that the Chief Judge was born on October 27, 1956, until 2006 when she swore an affidavit claiming that her date of birth was October 27, 1958.
The petitioners maintained that age falsification by public servants is a very serious offence for which many Judicial Officers had also been dismissed after they had been found guilty of falsifying their individual ages.
The Chief Judge’s Admission Form into the Law School in 1981 has her date of birth as October 27, 1956.
Another document, the Nominal Roll For Directors titled “Disposition Of Directors in lmo State Civil Service Commission”, has her date of birth as 27, 1956.
In her first Appointment into lmo State Civil Service on July 6, 1983 and her Appointment as Assistant Director GL. 15 on July 1993 respectively, all had her date of birth as October 27, 1956.
However, after the affidavit of September 6, 2006, certain documents began to have her date of birth as October 27, 1958.
ln the National Judicial Council Nominal Roll Of Judicial Officers for 2013 Budget Proposal, her date of birth was stated as October 27, 1958.
In the petition, Her international Passport dated February 23, 2023, has her date of birth as October 27, 1958. Even Judicial Officers Nominal Roll For 2018 Budget Proposal had her date of birth as October 27, 1958.
Imo Government Yet To Respond
When we contacted the Commissioner for Justice and Attorney General of Imo State, COS Akaolisa on Saturday, didn’t take or return calls put across to him.
Also, Chief Akaolisa is yet to respond to SMS sent to him regarding this matter.
