A legal practitioner, Onyeakalam Alilionwu, has petitioned the chief judge of the Federal High Court, Abuja, over the continued detention of his client, Okechukwu Ugenyi, despite being granted bail by the Federal High Court 1, Awka, Anambra State.
In a renewed petition dated 16th October, 2026, Alilionwu called for a thorough investigation into the alleged roles of the deputy chief registrar, Mba Nkem, and a court clerk, Mrs Ijeoma Okoye, in circumstances surrounding the continued incarceration of his client.
The lawyer alleged that irregularities in the processing of Ugenyi’s bail conditions, including the alleged disappearance of his case file and conflicting reports on the verification of his surety’s residential address, had frustrated efforts to secure his release.
According to the petition, Ugenyi was granted bail on 10th July, 2026, but his lawyers subsequently encountered difficulties completing the bail process.
The petition stated that when the legal team returned to the court on 13th July, they were informed that the case file was with the judge, who was making some corrections.
However, the following day, a court official allegedly told the client’s relative that only one particular official, identified as OC/Legal, Zone 13, A.N. Oboh, could delay the processing of the bail.
The lawyer further alleged that the verification of the surety’s residential address, submitted by Mrs Okonkwo Ngozi Peace, became contentious after the case file was reportedly declared missing on 16 July.
Although the file was reportedly recovered the following day, the petition claimed that the verification process was delayed, with the official initially assigned to conduct it allegedly failing to visit the surety’s address.
The petition further alleged that on 23 July, the legal team was informed that the deputy chief registrar had locked the client’s file in her office and travelled to Enugu State.
It also raised questions over a negative verification report allegedly submitted by Oboh, which the lawyers said was subsequently disputed by another police official.
According to the petition, on 24 July, the officer-in-charge of legal at Zone 13 Police Headquarters, Ukpo, CSP Innocent Obi, directed that another verification exercise be conducted.
The exercise was subsequently carried out by Inspector Edith Okonkwo on 25 July, and the report was submitted to the court bailiff, Anthony C. Anoh, on 27 July.
The petition, however, alleged that the deputy chief registrar and the court clerk subsequently asked the defence counsel to write to the judge requesting a change of prosecutor, a request the lawyers said they promptly submitted.
But the legal team claimed that the court officials later informed them that the judge could not act on the request because the court had proceeded on vacation.
Raising questions over the circumstances surrounding the verification exercise, Alilionwu asked the chief judge to establish who was authorised to conduct the verification, whether the initial negative report was genuinely prepared by the police official whose name appeared on it, and why another verification report was allegedly not attached to the court records.
The lawyer also expressed concern about the omission of certain documents when his team applied for Certified True Copies of the proceedings on 17 August 2026.
He listed the missing documents as the ruling granting his client bail, records of court proceedings and documents obtained by the court during the verification exercise.
The petition further alleged possible conflicts of interest in the handling of the criminal proceedings, claiming that Oboh had prosecuted several cases involving the same nominal complainant, Chief Pius Ezeigwe, since 2018.
It specifically referenced two cases involving members of the Umuduke kindred, one of which listed Ugenyi as a defendant.
Expressing concern about his client’s welfare, Alilionwu further claimed that Ugenyi had been denied access to medication and medical examination, attaching a copy of his client’s medical report to the petition.
He warned that the detention could continue beyond the next adjourned date, 17 February 2027, unless the chief judge intervened.
The lawyer therefore urged the chief judge to invoke the powers of his office under Section 249 of the Constitution to investigate the allegations, ensure accountability and prevent any compromise of judicial integrity.
He also requested that the facts contained in the renewed petition and an earlier complaint dated 18 September 2026 be independently verified.
About Author
