Court Nullifies Enugwu-Agidi Union’s 2025 Election, Finds Commissioner Had No Power to Replace Returning Officers -By Daniel Nduka Okonkwo

A High Court in Anambra State has nullified the 29 December 2025 election of the President-General of the Enugwu-Agidi Brotherly Union and held that the state Commissioner for Local Government, Chieftaincy and Community Affairs had no power under the Union’s constitution to replace the returning officers elected to conduct it. The judgment, delivered on 24 September 2026, also ordered a fresh election within 90 days and now sits at the centre of questions about the role of the Anambra State Government in the affairs of a voluntary community association.

The decision was delivered by Hon. Justice Etomike Ndigwe of the High Court of Anambra State, Anaocha Judicial Division, sitting at Neni, in Suit No. NN/04/2026 between Hon. Ebuka Onuorah and four defendants. They are Ozo Pius Nwankwo, Mr. Martin Nnoli Okoye, Pastor Ifechukwu Okafor, and Mr. Ifeme Kelue, the last three described in the suit as purported members of the Electoral Committee. The plaintiff began the suit by writ of summons on 13 January 2026. Barrister E.M. Onwuemena appeared for him, while Barrister Bona Oraekwe appeared for the defendants.

The plaintiff told the court that he was elected President-General of the Union on 29 December 2022 and was entitled under its constitution to contest for a second term. He said Chapter 8, Article 26(9) requires the Union’s election to be conducted by three returning officers elected under the supervision of the outgoing executives. According to his pleadings, three officers were elected and ratified at the General Conference, namely Barrister Anthony Chuka Nwogbo as chairman, Pastor Ifechukwu Okafor as secretary, and Mr. Clement Nwobi as a member.

His case was that the defendants then circulated documents imposing the second to fourth defendants as the electoral committee, and that on election day, those persons conducted a process in which Mr. Nwankwo was declared the winner. The plaintiff pleaded a result of 1,698 votes for Mr. Nwankwo against 294 for himself, with 20 invalid votes and a total of 2,012 votes cast. He also pleaded that he was arrested by security agents on the day and prevented from voting. These are the plaintiff’s allegations as pleaded and should be distinguished from the specific findings made by the court.

The defendants asked the court to strike out the suit for want of jurisdiction, lack of locus standi, non-joinder of necessary parties, failure to use the Union’s internal dispute resolution mechanism, and non-disclosure of a cause of action. They argued, among other things, that the Commissioner and the security agents should have been joined, and that the rule in Foss v Harbottle, concerning majority rule in corporate affairs, made the suit unavailing. The court dismissed the motion, describing it as brought in utmost mala fide and incongruous with Order 23(1) of the High Court of Anambra State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019.

On the first issue, the court held that the plaintiff had locus standi. It reasoned that a plaintiff must show a legal right or sufficient interest in the subject matter, that this is deduced from the statement of claim, and that the plaintiff, as a candidate who desired a second term, had the right to complain of irregularity in the election.

The second issue decided the case. The court found from the pleadings and evidence that the election was not conducted by the three elected returning officers but by the second to fourth defendants. It noted a letter dated 23 December 2025, tendered by the defence as Exhibit D4, by which the Commissioner changed the elected returning officers. Under that letter, only the third defendant, Pastor Ifechukwu Okafor, was retained, while the other two officers were replaced by the second and fourth defendants without an election as the Union’s constitution provides.

The court then considered whether the Commissioner had power under the Union’s constitution to change elected returning officers and answered in the negative. It found the composition of the second to fourth defendants as returning officers wrongful and in clear breach of the Union’s constitution, and held that the election they conducted could not stand. It resolved both issues in the plaintiff’s favour.

The court declared that the election did not comply with the Union’s constitution and guidelines, nullified the purported election, and set aside any certificate of return issued to Mr. Nwankwo. It ordered a fresh election within 90 days, to be conducted by returning officers elected or already elected under the supervision of the outgoing executives. It also restrained Mr. Nwankwo from conducting any affairs of the office of President-General and restrained the second to fourth defendants from serving as returning officers or members of the electoral committee for the fresh election. It made no order as to costs.

The limits of the judgment matter. The Ministry and the Commissioner were not parties to the suit, and the court made no personal finding of liability against any officeholder. The judgment does not name the individual who held the office of Commissioner when the letter of 23 December 2025 was issued. It also makes no finding on who ordered the arrest alleged by the plaintiff.

In line with the right of reply, I sent written questions, together with a certified true copy of the judgment, to the Commissioner for Local Government, Chieftaincy and Community Affairs; the Secretary to the State Government; the Commissioner for Information and Value Reformation; and the Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice on Friday, 16 October 2026. The questions asked who held the office of Commissioner on 23 December 2025, whether the Ministry issued the letter, what legal authority was relied upon, what the Government’s response was to the court’s findings, whether any party had appealed or sought a stay of execution, what steps were being taken to comply with the judgment, and whether the Government was involved in any arrangement concerning the Union’s leadership.

I reached the Commissioner for Local Government, Chieftaincy and Community Affairs by telephone on the morning of 16 October. He said he was in a meeting and asked me to call again in the evening. He also said he had not received the judgment and knew nothing about the Enugwu-Agidi election, adding that he was not around when it was held. When I called again that evening and referred to those remarks, the Commissioner said he did not think he had made them. He said a President-General had visited his office that day and that they had discussed the matter. He also said that anybody conducting an election did so at his own peril and asked me not to call him again. These statements are reported from my telephone conversations with the Commissioner.

The offices were asked to respond by 7:00 PM on Friday, 16 October 2026, following information that an election was scheduled for Saturday, 17 October 2026. During my interview with Hon. Ebuka Onuorah, the plaintiff in the suit, he stated that an election would take place the following day. I put the matter to the relevant government offices, asking whether they were aware of the proposed election and whether they considered the arrangements consistent with the court’s judgment and orders. The Commissioner for Information and Value Reformation replied by message on the night of 16 October 2026, stating that there would be no election this year. His message did not specify which election he meant, and I therefore cannot conclusively attribute that statement to the proposed Enugwu-Agidi election. None of the other offices contacted had responded in writing at the time of publication.

The plaintiff has expressed concern that a caretaker committee could be formed from the executive whose election the court nullified. That is his stated concern and not a fact, and I put it to the Government for a response. The judgment itself restrains the first defendant from conducting the affairs of the office of President-General and prescribes how the fresh election is to be conducted. This makes the question of who may lawfully supervise the process important. Any proposed caretaker arrangement would need to be assessed against the precise terms of the judgment and applicable law. I have not established that such an arrangement has been formed or formally proposed by the Government.

I also interviewed Mr. Emeka Ementa, Deputy President of the Union, elected under the executive on 29 December 2025, whose election the court nullified. Mr. Ementa said the executive had a right of appeal and would pursue it until that right was exhausted. Asked whether the executive would take part in a fresh election, he said there was no election. Asked about a possible caretaker committee, he said the executive was not talking about a caretaker arrangement. Asked whether the State Government was intimidating the executive, he said the Government belonged to everybody and not to a particular individual. He did not state whether a notice of appeal or an application for a stay of execution had been filed, and I have not independently confirmed whether either step has been taken.

Beyond the parties, the judgment raises broader legal points. Section 287 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 addresses the enforcement of court decisions by the authorities and persons to whom its provisions apply. As a general principle, filing an appeal does not, by itself, operate as a stay of execution; a stay must be obtained where required. Whether particular conduct amounts to disobedience of a subsisting court order, and whether a person who was not a party could incur liability for knowingly assisting such disobedience, depends on the precise terms of the order, the relevant facts, and applicable law. These are general legal observations, not findings by the court that the State Government or any official has violated the judgment or committed contempt.

The wider significance lies in the limits of executive power. A town union is a voluntary association governed by its own constitution, subject to applicable law. The court reasoned that the Commissioner lacked authority under the Union’s constitution to replace the elected returning officers. Whether a public authority may intervene in the affairs of a particular association must be assessed against the association’s constitution, any applicable statutory powers, and the circumstances of the intervention. Where a government letter alters who runs an association’s election, the legal basis for that intervention is a legitimate subject of public inquiry.

The Anambra State Government now has an opportunity to state its position on the issues raised by the judgment. It can clarify whether the Ministry issued the letter of 23 December 2025, what authority it relied upon, whether any party has appealed or sought a stay of execution, how it interprets the judgment’s requirements for a fresh election within 90 days, and whether it is aware of any proposed election or interim leadership arrangement. These questions seek the Government’s position and do not presume that any allegation of wrongdoing has been established.

This report is grounded in the judgment of the High Court of Anambra State delivered on 24 September 2026 in Suit No. NN/04/2026. It distinguishes the court’s findings and orders from the parties’ pleadings, statements made during interviews, responses received from public officials, and the writer’s legal analysis. The judgment is reported in the public interest, with an opportunity afforded to the relevant authorities and other persons concerned to respond. Any substantive response subsequently received will be published in full or fairly summarised, as appropriate, and the report will be updated where necessary.

Daniel Nduka Okonkwo is an investigative journalist, human rights advocate, and policy analyst based in Nigeria. He is the founder and publisher of Profiles International Human Rights Advocate (PIHRA), a platform documenting the courage of human rights defenders and examining issues of governance, accountability, security, and fundamental rights.

His reporting on Nigerian governance, security-sector accountability, public finance, and human rights has appeared in Sahara Reporters, Vanguard, Daily Trust, African Defence Forum, Opinion Nigeria, and Daily Intel.

Read more of his work on the PIHRA website:
https://www.profilesinternationalhumanrightsadvocate.com.ng/

For tips, feedback, or collaboration, contact him at dan.okonkwo.73@gmail.com.