Fresh controversy has emerged within the Edo State judiciary over allegations that the Chief Judge, Hon. Justice Daniel Iyabosa Okungbowa, has failed to comply with directives issued by the National Judicial Council (NJC) in an ongoing ₦5 billion libel suit involving former INEC Resident Electoral Commissioner Mike Igini and retired Colonel David Imuse.
The case, which has been before the Edo State High Court since 2020, has reportedly been stalled despite a clear NJC directive that proceedings should continue from the point they previously reached and not be restarted.
The NJC had ordered that the matter remain before the original trial judge, Hon. Justice V.O. Eboreime, to conclude proceedings, but sources say the directive has not been fully implemented, leading to concerns among observers and legal insiders.
The dispute stems from Suit No. B/555/2020, a defamation action filed by Mike Igini against Col. David Imuse following public allegations made during the build-up to the Edo governorship election.
According to details of the case, Igini had already closed his case, while two media organisations joined as defendants had also concluded their defence. Only Imuse remained to open his defence before the trial was disrupted.
However, proceedings were previously affected after the case was reassigned by the Chief Judge to be heard de novo, a move that would have restarted the trial from the beginning despite its advanced stage and completed testimonies.
Following a petition by Igini in November 2024, the NJC intervened and ruled in his favour, directing that the case be returned to Justice Eboreime and continued from where it stopped. The Council also cautioned against procedural actions that could unfairly delay or reset ongoing trials.
Despite this intervention, the matter has since suffered further setbacks, including interruptions linked to a fresh petition reportedly filed against the trial judge, which observers say has contributed to prolonged delays in the proceedings.
The case was scheduled for continuation on February 2, 2026, when Col. Imuse was expected to open his defence, but court proceedings did not hold on that date, further stalling the long-running litigation.
Legal observers have expressed concern over what they describe as repeated administrative disruptions in the handling of the case, warning that continued delays could undermine judicial efficiency and public confidence in the court system.
Some insiders have alleged that administrative decisions within the judiciary have contributed to what they describe as an extended suspension of proceedings, despite NJC guidelines discouraging interruptions in advanced-stage trials.
The development has triggered wider debate within legal circles over judicial autonomy, compliance with NJC directives, and the handling of long-running civil disputes involving high-profile parties.
As of the latest developments, the case remains unresolved, with critics arguing that repeated delays have effectively prevented the matter from reaching final judgment despite years of proceedings.
