Time to Save Judicial Appointments from Corruption: A Rejoinder to Uzoamaka Uche-Ikonne and O. A. Uhegbu

A strong legal rejoinder has emerged following the Court of Appeal’s ruling on the Abia judicial appointment process. The debate raises critical questions about transparency, locus standi, and the future of judicial integrity in Abia state. Read the full analysis and detailed arguments on our website. Click the link below to explore the complete story.

The renewed attempt by Mrs. Uzoamaka Uche-Ikonne, whose late husband, it bears recalling, was at the material time the PDP Governorship candidate in Abia State, and Mr. O. A. Uhegbu to reconstruct the narrative surrounding the Abia judicial appointment process calls for a measured and principled clarification. This is a matter governed by judicial record.

On 4 February 2026, the Court of Appeal, Owerri Judicial Division, delivered its ruling in Appeal No. CA/OW/300M/2024 (Nkume & Anor v. Attorney-General of Abia State & Ors.). The Court did not merely dismiss the Applicants’ motion; it made clear and deliberate pronouncements on their conduct and their standing in law.

In the words of the Honourable Court:

“By the Applicants’ conduct, the Applicants are like a catfish called Asukpak Ebai in Anang language. The catfish will not enter the net and will not allow others to enter. It is opprobrious and unwholesome for any citizen of a State to hold to ransom for his or her failure to achieve a feat in that State.”

The Court further held that the Applicants:

“have no vested legal right or cognizable interest arising from the 2022 judicial appointment exercise which could confer upon them the locus standi to impugn or challenge the 2024 judicial appointment process.”

And, in language that admits of no ambiguity, the Court affirmed:

“No Court or any reasonable Tribunal, Committee or Body will be friendly with any form of corruption or illegalities in any procedure or any exercise be it a judicial appointment, employment or any other employment in any society.”

These are the considered findings of a superior court of record.

It is therefore surprising that individuals whose conduct has been judicially described in such grave terms would now seek to assume the posture of custodians of transparency while disregarding the Court’s pronouncements on their lack of locus standi and the impropriety of their litigation approach.

Considerable emphasis has been placed on pending proceedings at the Federal High Court. Yet once the Court of Appeal determined that the Applicants lacked a vested legal right or cognizable interest in the 2022 exercise, the foundation of those suits became legally infirm. 

Litigation pursued without locus standi is a nullity in law. Proceedings instituted where jurisdiction is absent cannot produce valid results. In those circumstances, any derivative actions necessarily stand on precarious ground and, in substance, become otiose.

Senior members of the Bar are expected to appreciate these elementary principles. The dignity of the profession requires that the courts not be deployed as instruments of protracted grievance where the central issues have been settled in principle by an appellate court.

It must also be stated that concerns regarding the 2022 exercise did not emerge from the beer parlor. They were canvassed in judicial proceedings and were publicly raised during the tenure of the immediate past Honourable Attorney-General of Abia State, Mr. Uche Iheduwa, SAN, who then served as Vice-Chairman of the Judicial Service Commission. Questions about irregularities in that process were articulated in multiple professional fora, including engagements connected with the International Bar Association.

To characterise the discontinuance of that exercise as a mere by-product of litigation delay is to overlook the broader context of institutional concern and judicial reference to irregularities. The Court of Appeal’s categorical rejection of attempts to stall the fresh process underscores that reality.

It bears repeating that the Court described the Applicants’ conduct as “stylish,”

 “mischievous,” and “cunning.” Such language is not employed lightly by an appellate court. It is intended to convey judicial disapproval of conduct deemed inconsistent with the orderly administration of justice. It ought to prompt circumspection rather than renewed agitation.

Professor Chidi Odinkalu’s longstanding advocacy for judicial reform is widely acknowledged. His insistence that judicial appointments must be transparent, credible, and insulated from corruption accords with the noblest traditions of the legal profession.

Reform does not become partisan because it is inconvenient; nor does scrutiny become illegitimate because it unsettles entrenched expectations.

The integrity of the judicial appointment process in Abia State , as in any jurisdiction, must rest on merit, transparency, and adherence to lawful procedure. That standard binds all actors: government officials, applicants, litigants, and public commentators alike.

In the final analysis, the Court of Appeal has spoken. Its pronouncements remain binding unless and until set aside by a higher court.

Public discourse on this matter must therefore be anchored in those judicial findings, not in retrospective reconstruction.

The judiciary must indeed be protected from corruption. It must equally be protected from distortion.

 

Ejikeme Eleke, Esq.