N5bn Libel Suit: New Twist As Imuse Petition CJ, Wants Fresh Trial

A new twist has been introduced to the N5 billion libel suit instituted by the former Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC) for Akwa Ibom State, Mr. Mike Igini, against the immediate past Edo State Chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Col. David Imuse (Rtd), over the latter’s claim at a press conference that Igini was seen in Benin city collecting money from Governor Godwin Obaseki to rig the September 2020 governorship election in the state.

The new twist, which the lawyers to the claimant and other two defendants in the matter said to be in realms of the confirmation of the aphorism that “Justice delayed is justice denied”, is the new petition written by Imuse, through his counsel, Austin Osenrokon, to the Edo State Chief Judge (CJ), Justice Daniel Iyobosa Okungbowa, to order the case to start de novo, following the transfer of the presiding judge, Justice  Vestee Eboreime, from the Benin division of the Edo State High Court to the Okada Division.

Imuse’s latest petition comes four years after the case opened. The claimant and the two co-defendants, African Newspapers of Nigeria Plc, Publishers of the Tribune Titles, and the Sun Newspaper, who are the second and third defendants, respectively, had opened and closed their defences.

The office of the Edo CJ has since been flooded with letters from the Claimant, Igini, and the two Co-defendants, drawing the attention of the Chief Judge and appealing to him not to grant the unwarranted request of Col Imuse his call for starting “de novo” (meaning start over again) of the N5 billion libel suit that had been on for four years when the Claimant, lgini had closed his case.

The lawyers pointed out the hardship that such a request (de novo), if granted, would have on them in terms of the enormous financial costs they had already incurred, such as hotel expenses and travelling costs from Oyo and Enugu States, respectively, whenever the matter came up in Benin.

They drew attention to the fact that the first defendant and counsel reside in Benin and that the numerous adjournments this case had suffered were orchestrated by the first defendant’s lawyer, whose only aim was to frustrate the case.

According to the Claimant’s lawyer, for three years, Col. Imuse (Rtd) refused to file a defence and waited for the claimant, lgini, to close his case before filing his defence and raised further allegations that the Claimant needed to be recalled clarifying. Imuse opposed the move to recall the Claimant. Arguments were taken, and a ruling was slated for July 16, 2024, for Imuse to open his defence.

Surprisingly, Imuse lawyer Austin Osenrokon stood up and wanted to arrest the ruling, arguing that the Judge could no longer preside over the matter, having been transferred to the Okada division.

The learned counsel to Igini, Clement Onwewunor (SAN), countered the argument with recent Supreme Court authority that Edo High Court is one and that the 1979 old authority cited had to do with elevating a Judge to a higher court. Even at that, such elevation must have been gazette before such a judge could be precluded from handling cases from the previous court of elevation.

The SAN further argued that the trial judge in this case was never elevated to Appeal Court, but a routine administrative transfer that had no effect on this case could not be a reason for the first defendant not opening his defence and that the judge was covered by the CJ’s warrant.

The court ruled that the CJ warrant covered it. It then went on to deliver its ruling on whether Igini could be recalled by his lawyer to clarify new allegations raised by Col. Imuse in his statement of defence, which was not filed and served on the Claimant until after Lgini had closed his case.

The court ruled that it was only fair and just for the Claimant to be recalled by his lawyer to the witness box to clarify the issues raised in the 1st defendant’s statement of defence that was not served the Claimant and had no opportunity of responding to the new issue raised before he closed his case.

Immediately after the ruling, Col. Imuse’s lawyer rose up and told the court that he would not participate in the proceeding because of the ruling, recalling the Claimant until further instruction by his Client (Col. Imuse.)

The proceedings continued with the Claimant recalling and answering two questions from his lawyer and being discharged. After that, both the 2nd defendant (Tribune) and 3rd defendant (Sun) opened their defences by calling witnesses that were examined by the lawyer of the Claimant, lgini as well as Col. Imuse’s lawyer, who examined his co-defendant’s witnesses, and both 2nd and 3rd defendants closed their cases that day and only 1st defendant was left to open his defence for the next adjourned date of August 2, 2024, the national protest overtook that.

While counsel was waiting for a new date, information filtered in that Col. Imuse and his lawyer had written another petition, like the previously dismissed one by the immediate past CJ, to the current CJ against the trial judge over this case as he had done in 2022.  But this time, he sought a “de novo trial” after four years of his inability to defend his libelous allegations and never appeared in court.

Again, as in the previous petition, seeking the trial Judge’s removal over the admissibility of pleaded and relevant documents duly certified, the counsel to Imuse did not copy other parties.

The office of the then-CJ copied all Counsel involved in the matter. It was able to respond to the lies and fabrications made against the trial judge, about whom they had boasted of enjoying favourable support to frustrate the case because the Judge is of the Esan-speaking ethnic group with Col. Imuse.

Though Imuse filed an appeal against the ruling, he failed to pursue it; instead, he would rather have the trial Judge, who had indulged him so much, perhaps, to avoid the accusation of bias to the extent that a motion for extension of time to file a defence after three years was granted without actual copy of statement of defence attached to the motion, and no evidence of filing fees receipt. Yet, it was granted despite the opposition of the Claimant’s lawyer, who was removed from handling the matter by the same Trial judge.

The latest move is to use the office of the respected CJ, Justice Okungbowa, to have the matter commenced over again to frustrate the case because the Claimant was recalled clarifying new allegations col. Imuse raised in his defence deliberately filed after Barr. Mike lgini had closed his case. Instead of appealing the ruling, Col. Imuse wants the matter to start over again by writing a petition to the Chief Judge to use the recent posting of judges to frustrate the matter.