ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Anambra State House of Assembly has confirmed the 18 commissioner nominees earlier sent by Governor Chukwuma Soludo on May 4, 2026.

The list comprised second timers like the former commissioner for Information, Dr Law Mefor, to be in charge of Information and Value Reformation, former commissioner for Health, Dr Afam Obidike and Commissioner for Lands, Prof Offonze Amuchiazu, SAN

The others confirmed during plenary on Wednesday are Chief Ugoji Amedu for Culture, Entertainment and Tourism and Dr Clem Aguiyi for Environment

Others include ;

Agriculture — Dr. Ben Chuks Odoemena
Budget and Economic Planning— Mr Chukwukadibia Okoye
Education — Dr. Ekene Ogugua
Finance — Mr Izuchukwu M. Okafor.
Justice and Attorney-General — Barr. Tobechukwu Nweke, SAN
Local Government and Community Affairs— Barr. Vin Ezeaka
Petroleum and Mineral Resources — Prof. Charles Ofoegbu
Physical Planning and Urban Development — Barr. Chijioke Oseloka Ojukwu
Power — Engr. Casmir Chinenye Agummadu
Works and Infrastructure — Arc. Okey Ezeobi
Transport — Hon. Eddy Ibuzo
Women Affairs and Social Development — Mrs Esther Chinyere Onyekesi and
Youth Development and Sports — Mr. Patrick Agha Mba

They were confirmed exactly 3.38 pm by the Lawmakers, after the report presented by the screening committee, led by Hon Noble Igwe,(Ogbaru 1) constituency

Before discharging the new commissioners from the plenary, the speaker, Hon Somtochukwu Udeze, charged them to be prudent in the discharge of their duties.

“If Anambra is to be a destination, I want all of us to work together. It is a new beginning from today in the state. Leadership is a responsibility; as you assume office, it is on the table.

“Every decision you make, you must answer the question, ‘ How does it improve the lives of the people? You have to always make yourselves accessible to the people,” Udeze said.

Responding on behalf of other commissioners, Dr Law Mefor, thanked the Lawmakers and commended the governor, Prof Chukwuma Soludo, for finding them worthy of the positions.

He assured that they would not disappoint the people of the state in their new positions.

Meanwhile, Prof Soludo has sent a second batch of a new list to the Assembly for confirmation

The additional Commissioner-nominees are Arc. Henry Arinze – Commissioner Designate For Housing; Mr Nonso Chukwuma Ebonwu – Commissioner Designate for Commerce, and Dr. Ezeaka Augustine Uwaeme – Executive Secretary, Anambra State Health Insurance Agency (ASHIA)

The new names were read by the speaker, Hon Somtochukwu Udeze, during Wednesday’s plenary and referred the new list to the Committee on Screening and Election Matters.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The National Executive Council (NEC) of the Nigerian Bar Association has rejected the directive mandating civilian legal practitioners appearing before Courts Martial to wear legal robes, insisting that such a requirement has no legal backing under existing Nigerian laws.

The position was adopted unanimously during the NEC meeting, following deliberations on a recent Convening Order establishing a Court Martial to try officers and soldiers accused of plotting a coup against the Federal Government.

Earlier, the President of NBA, Afam Osigwe, wrote a letter dated April 27, 2026, to the Chief of Army Staff over the controversial directive requiring civilian lawyers to appear robed before the military tribunal.

In its resolution, the Council maintained that the mandatory robing requirement amounts to an unlawful extension of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners.

According to NEC, Rule 79 of the Rules of Procedure (Army) 1972 merely outlines the categories of persons qualified to appear before a Court Martial and does not prescribe any dress code for counsel appearing before such tribunals.

The Council further argued that the regulation of the conduct and appearance of legal practitioners in Nigeria falls exclusively within the authority of the General Council of the Bar pursuant to the Legal Practitioners Act and the Rules of Professional Conduct.

NEC emphasized that Rule 45 of the Rules of Professional Conduct specifically identifies the courts before which lawyers are required to appear robed, namely the High Courts, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

It stated that the deliberate mention of those courts excludes tribunals and quasi-judicial bodies not expressly listed, including Courts Martial.

The Council also noted that legal practitioners do not appear robed before several constitutionally recognised tribunals and quasi-judicial bodies, adding that there was therefore no legal basis for extending the requirement to military courts.

While acknowledging that Courts Martial are recognised courts established under the Armed Forces Act, NEC maintained that such recognition does not automatically import the ceremonial and procedural rules applicable to superior courts of record under the Constitution.

The NBA NEC consequently called on the Nigerian Army to immediately review and withdraw the aspect of the Convening Order compelling civilian lawyers appearing before Courts Martial to wear robes.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court, Abuja, has dismissed a suit seeking to compel the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to register the All Democratic Alliance (ADA) as a political party.

In a judgment, Justice Nwite held that the suit filed by promoters of the association was incompetent and unsupported by credible evidence.

The plaintiffs, led by Umar Ardo, had sued INEC alongside Chief Akin Ricketts and Aminu Ahmed, seeking an order compelling the electoral body to register ADA as a political party.

They also urged the court to declare the association deemed registered under Section 75(4) of the Electoral Act, 2022, on the grounds that INEC allegedly failed to act within the statutory period.

However, the court upheld a preliminary objection filed by the second and third defendants, who argued that the suit was commenced through the wrong procedure.

Justice Nwite held that the issues raised by the plaintiffs were contentious and involved allegations of fraud and disputed facts which could not be resolved through originating summons.

The judge ruled that the matter ought to have been initiated through a writ of summons to allow parties to call oral evidence and cross-examine witnesses.

The judge held that the matter was instituted through an improper procedure and was thereby incompetent, and consequently struck out the suit.

“Consequently, the second and third defendants’ preliminary objection is upheld, and this suit is hereby struck out,” he added.

The judge, however, proceeded to determine the substantive claims of the plaintiffs, “assuming I am wrong” on the procedural issue.

In the substantive decision, Justice Nwite held that the plaintiffs failed to establish with credible evidence that Chief Ricketts had defected from ADA to the African Democratic Congress (ADC), as alleged.

The plaintiffs had relied on online newspapers publications to argue that Ricketts had joined the ADC before the suit was filed.

But the judge held that newspaper publications were insufficient proof of the truth of their contents.

Citing several authorities, including Ojukwu v. Yar’Adua and Fawehinmi v. IGP, the court held that newspaper reports only establish that a publication was made and not the veracity of the allegations contained in them.

Justice Nwite further held that the plaintiffs failed to provide independent evidence showing that Ricketts had formally defected to the ADC.

According to the court, there was no evidence such as membership records, a membership card, or proof of dues payment linking him to the ADC.

The court also agreed with INEC’s position that the plaintiffs failed to comply with constitutional and electoral requirements for political party registration.

The judge noted inconsistencies in the names of the interim national officers submitted to INEC and those contained in the association’s original letter of intent.

He held that the plaintiffs failed to satisfactorily explain the discrepancies.

“In sum, I am of the view, and I so hold, that the case of the plaintiffs is lacking in merit and not supported by credible evidence, and it is hereby dismissed,” Justice Nwite ruled.