Edo judicial crisis deepens as CJ allegedly defies NJC order in N5bn libel suit

A simmering judicial controversy in Edo State has escalated, with allegations that the Chief Judge of the state, Hon. Justice Daniel Iyabosa Okugbowa, is defying a directive of the National Judicial Council (NJC) over the handling of a N5 billion libel suit involving Barrister Mike Igini and retired Colonel David Imuse.

The matter, which has dragged on for about five years, is now at the centre of an administrative standoff that legal observers say raises concerns about judicial compliance, case management, and

The NJC had reportedly directed that the case file be returned to the original trial judge, Hon. Justice V.O. Eboreime, to conclude proceedings, after rejecting attempts to restart the matter afresh.

The Council had earlier frowned at what it described as a “de novo” approach, which would have effectively restarted the trial from the beginning—despite years of testimony already recorded and at least one witness reportedly deceased during the prolonged proceedings.

However, despite the directive, sources familiar with the case allege that the file has not been fully returned for continuation in line with NJC instructions, leading to further delays.

Justice Okugbowa had previously been queried by the NJC over the administrative handling of the same case, with the Council cautioning against actions perceived as interfering with the continuity of the trial.

The latest controversy is said to have intensified after the NJC reiterated that the matter must proceed from where it stopped and not be restarted.

READ ALSO: Edo govt arrests six over vandalism, issues 21-day eviction notice to scavengers

Following the Council’s intervention, the case file was briefly returned to Justice Eboreime. However, proceedings allegedly stalled again after Col. David Imuse (Rtd), the 1st Defendant, filed a fresh petition to the NJC against the trial judge.

While the trial judge reportedly responded promptly within 24 hours in line with NJC procedural expectations, court sittings in the matter have since been disrupted.

At the last scheduled hearing on February 2, 2026—when the 1st Defendant was expected to open his defence—the court did not sit.

Since then, the courtroom has reportedly remained inactive for over two months, raising concerns among parties involved.

Sources within the judiciary allege that administrative decisions within the Edo State Judiciary have contributed to repeated adjournments, effectively slowing down proceedings at a critical stage.

At present, the claimant, Barrister Mike Igini, has already closed his case. The 2nd and 3rd defendants—The Tribune and The Sun newspapers—have also concluded their defences. Only the 1st defendant remains to open his defence.

Legal observers argue that continued delay at this stage risks creating an indefinite stall in the proceedings, despite a reported NJC circular discouraging petitions from halting cases that are already substantially heard.

The situation has triggered wider concerns within legal circles about the balance of authority between state judiciaries and the NJC, which serves as the apex disciplinary and oversight body for judicial officers in Nigeria.

Some stakeholders argue that failure to implement NJC directives could undermine confidence in judicial discipline and case management efficiency, particularly in high-profile civil disputes.

Others, however, caution against drawing conclusions without full official clarification from the judiciary or the NJC.