By Izunna Okafor, Awka
The controversy surrounding the leadership of the Amichi Development Union (ADU) has taken a fresh turn, with stakeholders and concerned citizens coming on to set the record straight on the lingering dispute roaring its head in the peaceful community located in Nnewi South Local Government Area of Anambra State.
Popular and standing tall among the various clarifications so far given in recent time on the matter, is the reaction by the legal counsel to one of the parties in the longstanding dispute, M. A. Emejulu, Esq., who not only set the record straight, but also faulted the recent claims and publications alleging that the Anambra State Commissioner for Local Government, Chieftaincy and Community Affairs, Mr Vin Ifeanyi Ezeaka, unlawfully extended the tenure of the union’s President-General, Chief Cletus Udebuani Igbokwe.
Emejulu, in a detailed response to the publication, said the report appeared to present disputed legal arguments as settled facts, particularly in its interpretation of the July 21, 2026 order of the High Court of Anambra State, Nnewi Judicial Division, in Suit No. HN/215/2022.
He stressed that the leadership disputes and questions still remain before the Court, and that none of the contending parties, including the Registered Trustees or any government official should unilaterally determine the legal consequences of the court order.
The dispute, it was gathered, is the subject of Suit No. HN/215/2022, instituted by Mr Chukwuemeka Ezekiel Udogu and others against the Honourable Attorney-General of Anambra State and others, with Chief Cletus Udebuani Igbokwe listed as the third defendant and the Incorporated Trustees of Amichi Development Union/Association as the fifth defendant.
According to him, the controversy dates back to the leadership of the Amichi Development Union and competing claims arising from the town union’s 2022 election, with the parties subsequently seeking judicial intervention.
He said the matter came before Hon. Justice Dennis C. Maduechesi on July 21, 2026, for report of settlement, following which the court issued an interlocutory order directing the parties to maintain the status quo from that date.
The enrolled order specifically directed that none of the parties, particularly the plaintiffs and the third defendant, should assume the office of President-General of Amichi Town Union pending the determination of the motions already filed before the court.
It further ordered that the fifth defendant and any other person should maintain the status quo and should not conduct any election into the office of President-General pending determination of the preliminary objection and motion for interlocutory injunction.
The order further provided that none of the parties, particularly the plaintiffs and the third defendant, should assume the office of President-General pending the determination of the motions already filed before the court.
It also restrained the fifth defendant and any other person from conducting an election into the office of President-General pending determination of the preliminary objection and motion for interlocutory injunction.
It was however, observed that, following the expiration of Udebuani’s 4-year term, a letter dated August 7, 2026, from the Anambra State Ministry of Local Government, Chieftaincy and Community Affairs to the Amichi Development Union and signed by the Commissioner emerged, announcing the extension of the tenure of the Executive.
The ministry explained that in compliance with the court order and to avoid a vacuum in the administration of the union, it was necessary to extend the tenure of the existing executive solely for administrative continuity pending the court-adjourned date of the case.
“In compliance with the said Order and to avoid a vacuum in the administration of the Union, the Anambra State Government hereby directs that the tenure of the current Executive Committee of the Amichi Development Union be deemed extended solely for administrative continuity and to avoid vacuum in the leadership of the union, pending the setting aside, variation, or vacation of the Court Order, or until further directive by the Court,” the letter partly read.
This action of the Commissioner, has however, sparked off a chain of reactions and counter-reactions, as some are claiming that it was unlawful and that it was the 5th defendant — the Registered Trustees — that was supposed to take over the administration of the community pending when the court decides otherwise.
Reacting further, Emejulu, however, said a proper reading of the court order was important and significant, because the court did not expressly declare the office vacant, order Chief Udebuani to vacate office, appoint a caretaker administration or direct the Registered Trustees to assume executive control of the union.
He therefore described as an interpretation rather than a judicial pronouncement such claim by some people that the Registered Trustees automatically became entitled to take over the affairs of the union immediately after Udebuani’s tenure expired.
Emejulu maintained that this administrative position should not be misconstrued as the creation of a fresh substantive tenure or as a determination of the ultimate leadership rights of the parties.
He explained that the central legal question is what should lawfully happen to the administration of the union following the expiration of the tenure in circumstances where a subsisting court order has frozen the competing actions of the parties.
According to him, whether the expiration of the tenure automatically changes the status quo preserved by the court, whether the ADU constitution empowers the Registered Trustees to assume executive functions in such circumstances, and whether such a takeover would itself amount to altering the status quo are questions for the court to determine.
He consequently cautioned against treating an argument made by one faction as though it were already a judicial declaration.
Emejulu also stressed that Udebuani should not be portrayed as the person who procured or engineered the July 21 court order.
He noted that Udebuani was the third defendant in the suit and was not the applicant who approached the court for the order. The enrolled order itself records that the third and fifth defendants were unrepresented when the matter came up on July 21.
He said the order was directed at preserving the existing situation and restricting unilateral actions by the parties, rather than conferring a special advantage on the third defendant.
The legal practitioner further pointed out that the order cuts across the competing interests, as it specifically restrained both the plaintiffs and the third defendant from assuming the office of President-General, while also preventing the fifth defendant and any other person from conducting a fresh election.
This, he argued, makes it misleading to portray the order as a judicial mechanism designed by Udebuani to keep himself in office.
Some documents relating to the lingering dispute, obtained by this reporter, Izunna Okafor, also show that the Amichi Development Union had earlier notified the Ministry of Local Government, Chieftaincy and Community Affairs of its intention to conduct an election for new executives on August 29, 2026, at the Amichi Town Hall.
The notification, dated July 13, was signed by Udebuani and the union’s Secretary-General, Charles Okolo. A government revenue receipt dated July 15 also reflects a ₦100,000 payment by the Amichi Development Union described as an election fee. It was gathered that the proposed election, which was later scheduled for August 29th, was subsequently put on hold because the date clashes with the date of the 2026 Local Government Election in the state.
The fixture and proposed election are also in contradiction with the July 21 court order that restrains the conduct of any election into the office of President-General pending the determination of the applications before the court.
Emejulu said this chronology further demonstrates why the current situation should be handled through the judicial process rather than through competing administrative or community actions.
He also urged the Commissioner for Local Government, Chieftaincy and Community Affairs to exercise restraint and avoid taking any step founded solely on a partisan interpretation of the pending litigation.
According to him, the Commissioner is not an appellate authority over the High Court and should not be drawn into determining through administrative action questions which remain before the court.
He stressed that if any party believes that the expiration of Udebuani’s tenure has materially altered the circumstances contemplated by the July 21 order, the appropriate course is to return to the court for clarification, variation or consequential orders.
Emejulu emphasised that his position should not be interpreted as an argument for tenure elongation or disobedience of the ADU constitution or the court order.
Rather, he said the position is that no litigant, faction, trustee, newspaper or public official should assume the power to conclusively determine disputed legal rights while those rights remain pending before a competent court.
He also warned against what he described as trial by newspaper, noting that while the media has the right to report court proceedings, disputed legal arguments should not be presented as settled judicial conclusions.
He appealed to the parties and members of the Amichi community to allow the court to determine the matter, stressing that any disagreement with the July 21 order should be addressed through the procedures provided by law.
For Emejulu, the central issue is therefore not which faction can seize control of the union first, but what the law permits under the subsisting court order and the governing instruments of the Amichi Development Union.
He further urged all sides to avoid self-help and allow the High Court, which is already seized of the dispute, to pronounce on the outstanding questions.
In his words, the courtroom, rather than the newsroom or an administrative office, remains the proper forum for determining the competing rights of the parties and the eventual leadership of the Amichi Development Union.
************************
Some commentaries and reactions from concerned citizens:
AMICHI 2026 GENERAL ELECTION HICCUPS AND IMPEDIMENT; “CHIEF CLETUS UDEBUANI’S NO EFFECT STATUS”
Is Amichi general election due in this August, yes.
Was Anambra State Government duly informed as required by law? Yes.
Was the statutory payment to the government for election conduct paid? Yes.
Was Chief Cletus Udebuani contesting in the said election? No.
Why is the election not holding? Because there’s an existing court order which barred and restricted any one in any form from conducting the election.
Was it Chief Cletus Udebuani that instituted the court case that halted the election? No.
Who instituted the court case that halted the election? Some aggrieved members of Okpala quarter.
Has anyone approached the aggrieved persons to withdraw the court suit in order for election to be conducted and Chief Cletus Udebuani stopped them? No.
Has anyone or party attempted to approach the court to vacate the order that halted Amichi election and Chief Cletus Udebuani stopped it? No.
Has anyone or party approached the court for stay of execution of the trial court order in order for Amichi to conduct her election and Chief Cletus Udebuani stopped it? No.
Are there any party or parties that can or have the right and power to bypass Chief Cletus Udebuani and get lift of the election embargo? Yes.
Who are they? The BOT.
What can they do under the prevailing circumstances? Having been joined as a defending party to the suit that halted Amichi election, they can approach the court of higher authority to get stay of execution order against the order of the trial court.
Can Chief Cletus Udebuani stop the BOT should they approach the court for stay of execution order? No.
Can Chief Cletus Udebuani stop the BOT from approaching the aggrieved plaintiffs to understand their grievances and do justice to it? No.
So, actually, if there things that can be done and people or authority that can do something and see to it that Amichi election is conducted without Chief Cletus Udebuani stopping them, what are they waiting for? Why the much ado and shouting of Chief Cletus Udebuani here and there as if he is of any effect in respect to Amichi general election!
Indeed, Chief Cletus Udebuani is of no effect as regards the hiccups in Amichi general election.
NDI AMICHI, HEAR THIS, CHIEF CLETUS UDEBUANI IS NOT STOPPING ELECTION IN AMICHI! He has played his part. He has done all that the law is required of him with the government. Government not coming to hold election in Amichi is the making of the existing court order! Vacate the court order and see election in Amichi!
Withdraw the court case, and see election in Amichi!
Dalu kwanu.
Ike Abattam
=============
After carefully examining the ADU Constitution, the 21st July 2026 High Court order and the Commissioner’s 7th August letter, we need to distinguish between two things: the expiration of the normal constitutional tenure and the effect of the subsisting court order.
Yes, the ADU Constitution provides for a four-year tenure. But the same Constitution cannot be considered in isolation from a subsisting court order. On 21st July 2026, the High Court expressly ordered all parties to maintain the status quo, directed that nobody should assume the office of President General pending determination of the pending motions, and further prohibited the conduct of any election into the office.
Therefore, the court did not grant the President General a fresh four-year tenure, but neither did it order him to hand over to the BOT. The Commissioner’s letter of 7th August did not create a new constitutional tenure either; it interpreted the subsisting status-quo order as requiring temporary administrative continuity to prevent a vacuum pending further direction of the court.
So if the argument is that “his tenure has ended, therefore he must hand over,” the next and more important question is: hand over to whom? The court order before us does not authorise the BOT, any plaintiff, or any other person to assume the office. In fact, it expressly says that nobody should assume that office and that no election should be conducted pending the determination of the motions.
The proper position, therefore, is not that the PG has received a fresh constitutional tenure. Rather, the existing executive is being maintained temporarily pursuant to the subsisting court order, pending the court’s determination. If anyone contends otherwise, let us identify the exact paragraph of the court order that directs the PG to hand over or grants another person the right to assume the office.
Until that order is varied, vacated or clarified by the competent court, nobody should interpret the four-year tenure provision in a manner that contradicts the express interim orders of the court.
__________
As nwa Afo Amichi who genuinely desires peace and unity in our town, I respectfully appeal to the BOT to reconsider the demand that the President General should hand over.
Yes, the ADU Constitution provides for a four-year tenure, and nobody is disputing the supremacy of the Constitution. However, we cannot discuss the expiration of the tenure as though there is no subsisting court order. The High Court, on 21st July 2026, expressly ordered that the status quo be maintained, restrained anyone from assuming the office of President General, and further prohibited the conduct of any election pending the determination of the motions before it.
In view of that subsisting order, I respectfully ask, *(on what authority is the BOT demanding that the PG hand over, and to whom exactly is he expected to hand over?)* The court did not order the PG to hand over to the BOT, nor did it authorise the BOT or any other person to assume the office.
The Commissioner’s subsequent letter also did not create a fresh constitutional tenure, it recognised temporary administrative continuity pending further direction from the court.
Therefore, this should not become a battle of personalities or factions.
If we genuinely want peace in Amichi, every stakeholder must respect the Constitution, but equally respect the subsisting court order.
Nobody should take steps that may amount to self-help or create another crisis while the matter is before the court. Let the court determine the legal questions and let all of us abide by its decision.
Leadership is temporary, but Amichi is permanent. Let us protect the peace, unity and dignity of our town above every individual interest……*KA UCHE CHUKWU NWE MEZUE!*
~OCF ✍️
