This post has already been read at least 11385 times!
A fresh controversy has erupted around the ongoing trial of Ikechukwu Johnpaul Ezenagu before the High Court of Anambra State, Awka Judicial Division, after his defence counsel, Peter Femi Joseph, Esq., alleged that he was intimidated and subjected to a potentially threatening confrontation shortly after raising a fair-hearing objection in court.
The allegation followed proceedings on Monday, August 10, 2026, in The State v. Ikechukwu Johnpaul Ezenagu, popularly known as Muomili Afuluanya, Charge No. A/40C/2026, where the defence challenged the prosecution’s failure to provide legible copies of documents and requested video/electronic evidence intended to be relied upon during the trial.
According to the defence counsel, the incident occurred immediately after the court adjourned the matter to August 17, 2026, following concerns raised by the court over the quality and legibility of documents presented by the prosecution.
During Monday’s proceedings, prosecution counsel, led by C. G. Okonkwo, informed the court that the prosecution’s first witness, Chukwuemeka Nnakwue, was present and ready to testify.
The defence, however, informed the court that it had previously written to the prosecution on July 6, 2026, requesting copies of the electronic/video evidence intended to be tendered at trial, as well as clear and legible copies of statements and other documents upon which the prosecution intended to rely.
Joseph argued that the materials were necessary to enable the accused person adequately prepare his defence, relying on the constitutional guarantee of fair hearing and the right of an accused person to adequate facilities for the preparation of his defence.
The prosecution acknowledged receiving the defence letter but, according to the defence, had not supplied the requested materials before the August 10 proceedings.
Despite this, the prosecution sought to proceed with the testimony of PW1.
The court subsequently examined the documents available and reportedly observed that the statement of PW1 and other documents filed by the prosecution were not legible.
The court expressed concern that proceeding with illegible documents could result in a waste of valuable judicial time, prompting the prosecution to seek another adjournment to enable it provide clearer copies.
The case was consequently adjourned to August 17, 2026, for continuation of hearing.
However, according to Joseph, the events that followed outside the courtroom raised a more serious concern.
The defence counsel alleged that as he was leaving the court premises in a vehicle, PW1, Chukwuemeka Nnakwue, whom he identified as an operative of the Agunechemba/Udogachi security outfit, approached the vehicle alongside other persons.
Joseph alleged that Nnakwue pointed towards him while approaching the vehicle, creating what the lawyer described as a situation that caused him to fear for his personal safety.
The lawyer said he personally recorded the encounter on his mobile phone and that the recording captured PW1 approaching the vehicle and pointing towards him.
According to Joseph, PW1 stopped his approach after he began recording the incident.
The defence counsel further alleged that the confrontation was followed by a telephone conversation with F. C. Okeke, a prosecuting counsel with the Anambra State Ministry of Justice.
Joseph claimed that during the conversation, Okeke warned him, in substance, that if he continued recording PW1, he would be the one to “lose.”
The lawyer said the telephone conversation was also contemporaneously recorded and that the audio recording could be made available for independent verification.
The defence counsel has characterised the sequence of events as particularly troubling because it occurred immediately after he raised an objection concerning his client’s constitutional right to fair hearing and access to evidence required for the preparation of his defence.
He maintained that his objection did not seek to obstruct the proceedings but was aimed at ensuring that the defence received the materials necessary to properly examine and challenge the prosecution’s case.
The court’s subsequent observation regarding the illegibility of the prosecution’s documents and the adjournment of the proceedings, according to the defence, reinforced the basis for the objection.
Joseph said the alleged confrontation and subsequent telephone conversation therefore raised concerns about whether defence counsel could perform his professional duties without intimidation or pressure.
The defence has indicated that it possesses several materials which it says can facilitate independent verification of the allegations.
They include a video recording of the alleged confrontation outside the court premises, an audio recording of the telephone conversation with the prosecuting counsel, the July 6, 2026 letter requesting the prosecution’s electronic/video evidence and clear copies of relevant documents, as well as relevant court processes and records of the August 10 proceedings.
In a separate communication drawing attention to the incident, Joseph said he considered the matter significant enough to warrant independent investigation and public scrutiny.
He argued that the incident raised broader questions about the protection of defence counsel, the right to fair hearing and the integrity of criminal proceedings.
“A lawyer representing an accused person should be able to raise objections, demand disclosure of prosecution evidence and vigorously cross-examine prosecution witnesses without fear of intimidation, threats or physical confrontation,” the defence counsel stated.
He called for the circumstances surrounding the alleged confrontation and subsequent telephone conversation to be independently investigated.
The defence has also indicated its willingness to make the recordings and relevant court documents available for verification.
As of the time of the complaint, the allegations remained those of the defence counsel and had not been independently established by the court.
The defence has specifically indicated that responses are welcome from F. C. Okeke, Chukwuemeka Nnakwue, the Anambra State Ministry of Justice and relevant security authorities concerning the allegations.
The case is expected to return before the High Court of Anambra State on August 17, 2026, when proceedings are scheduled to continue.
Additional Development
In a further development, it was gathered that while the defence counsel was on his way to the airport after leaving the court premises, the same witness was allegedly trailing the vehicle on a motorcycle.
Concerned about his safety, the defence counsel reportedly directed the driver conveying him to the airport to turn into the premises of Zone 13 Police Command, Ukpo, in the Dunukofia Local Government Area of Anambra State, apparently to seek safety and protection.
The development has added another dimension to the concerns raised by the defence counsel over the alleged confrontation and subsequent events following the day’s court proceedings.
The circumstances surrounding the alleged pursuit, including the identity and intentions of the motorcyclist, could not be independently established as of press time.
This post has already been read at least 11385 times!
