BREAKING: From AMICHI LEADERSHIP: CONCERNED CITIZENS WARN AGAINST DISOBEDIENCE OF SUBSISTING COURT ORDER

CONCERNED CITIZENS WARN AGAINST DISOBEDIENCE OF SUBSISTING COURT ORDER

Urge Board of Trustees to avoid self-help, respect pending litigation and seek judicial clarification where necessary

By Concerned Citizens of Amichi

Concerned Citizens of Amichi have called on all parties to the lingering leadership dispute in Amichi Development Union, particularly the Board/Registered Trustees of the Union, to exercise restraint and avoid any action capable of undermining the subsisting Order of the High Court of Anambra State.

The intervention follows fresh public comments attributed to the Anambra State Commissioner for Local Government, Chieftaincy and Community Affairs, Barr. Vin Ifeanyi Ezeaka, concerning the leadership of Amichi Development Union.

The dispute is presently before the High Court of Anambra State, Nnewi Judicial Division, in Suit No. HN/215/2022, between:

Mr. Chukwuemeka Ezekiel Udogu & Ors. — Plaintiffs

and

1. Hon. Attorney-General of Anambra State and Commissioner for Justice

2. Hon. Commissioner for Chieftaincy and Town Union Affairs, Anambra State

3. Cletus Udebuani Igbokwe

4. Jeff Okeke (subsequently struck out)

5. Incorporated Trustees of Amichi Development Union/Association

   — Defendants

THE ORDER OF 21 JULY 2026

On 21 July 2026, the Honourable Court, presided over by Hon. Justice Dennis C. Maduechesi, made a preservative Order directing all parties to maintain the status quo from that date.

The Court further ordered that none of the parties, particularly the Plaintiffs and the 3rd Defendant, should assume the office of President-General pending determination of the motions already before it.

More importantly for the present controversy, the Court expressly ordered that:

«the 5th Defendant and any person whatsoever should maintain the status quo and should not conduct any election into the office of President-General of Amichi Development Union/Association pending determination of the Preliminary Objection and Motion for Interlocutory Injunction.»

That Order remains part of the subsisting record of the Court.

THE COMMISSIONER'S LATEST STATEMENT REINFORCES THE NEED FOR RESTRAINT

In the recent report published by News Setters on 14 August 2026, Commissioner Ezeaka was quoted as maintaining that the existing administrative arrangement should remain unchanged until the Court Order is vacated.

Whatever political interpretation anyone may place upon his statement, one important fact emerges from it:

the Court Order has neither been vacated nor set aside.

That fact should ordinarily compel restraint rather than unilateral action.

The Commissioner was further reported as stating that the Ministry had been served with the Court injunction and thereafter consulted relevant stakeholders in Amichi.

The existence of disagreements over the interpretation of the Order does not confer upon any faction the power to rewrite it or act as though it no longer exists.

EXPIRATION OF TENURE DOES NOT AUTHORISE SELF-HELP

It is common ground in the present public discussion that the tenure of the former President-General has expired.

That development undoubtedly raises legitimate questions as to the future administration of the Union.

But there is an important distinction between saying that a tenure has expired and saying that a particular body is automatically authorised to assume executive control notwithstanding an existing Court Order.

Those are not necessarily the same legal proposition.

If the Registered Trustees contend that the Constitution of the Union empowers them to assume interim management upon the expiration of tenure, that contention may properly be presented before the Court.

It does not follow that the Trustees can conclusively determine for themselves that such a takeover is compatible with the Order directing maintenance of status quo.

A RESTRAINT ON ELECTION SHOULD NOT BE CIRCUMVENTED THROUGH ANOTHER DEVICE

The Court expressly restrained the 5th Defendant and any person whatsoever from conducting an election into the office of President-General.

It would therefore be dangerous for any person or body to attempt to achieve indirectly, under the description of “interim management,” “caretaker administration” or any other nomenclature, a substantial alteration of the leadership arrangement which the Court has ordered the parties to preserve.

Whether a proposed interim takeover is lawful under the Union Constitution and compatible with the subsisting Order is a matter that should be judicially determined.

No faction should be judge in its own cause.

A WORD OF CAUTION TO THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES

The Registered Trustees are themselves the 5th Defendant in the pending suit.

They are therefore not strangers to the litigation.

They are directly mentioned in the Order of 21 July 2026.

For that reason, any decision by the Trustees to assume control of the Union, reorganise its administration, conduct or facilitate an election, install officers, take possession of Union property or otherwise alter the existing structure should be approached with the greatest caution.

A subsisting order of a competent court is not to be treated as optional merely because a party disagrees with its effect.

Where there is uncertainty, the proper course is to return to Court for clarification.

Any deliberate act done with knowledge of a subsisting Order and in circumstances ultimately found to be inconsistent with that Order may expose the actors to proceedings for contempt or other consequential orders of the Court.

That is not a threat. It is a basic consequence of the rule of law.

THE TRUSTEES SHOULD SEEK CLARIFICATION, NOT TAKEOVER

If the Trustees genuinely believe that the expiration of the former President-General's tenure has created a constitutional vacuum, they have a lawful and straightforward remedy:

approach the Honourable Court and seek clarification, variation or consequential directions.

That approach protects the Trustees.

It protects the community.

It protects the integrity of the Court.

And it prevents actions which may later be declared unlawful or contemptuous.

What should not happen is for any faction to first alter the administration of the Union and thereafter invite the Court to validate a fait accompli.

THE COURT HAS NOT FINALLY DETERMINED THE DISPUTE

It must be remembered that the Order of 21 July 2026 is interlocutory.

The Court has yet to finally determine the substantive rights of the parties.

There is also a pending Preliminary Objection and Motion for Interlocutory Injunction.

Until those issues are determined, neither the Plaintiffs, the 3rd Defendant, the Registered Trustees nor any other interested group should behave as though the Court has already pronounced a final winner.

OUR APPEAL TO AMICHI

The people of Amichi should resist attempts to turn this legal disagreement into a community confrontation.

The Registered Trustees occupy an important position in the community and should therefore be among the first to demonstrate respect for the judicial process.

The fact that a party believes the Union Constitution supports its position does not entitle that party to disregard a subsisting judicial order.

Equally, no government official should employ administrative power to determine issues which remain before the Court.

The lawful path is simple:

obey the Order, avoid self-help, and seek clarification from the Court where necessary.

CONCLUSION

Concerned Citizens of Amichi therefore respectfully but firmly call upon the Registered Trustees of Amichi Development Union/Association, all factions, government officials and interested persons to refrain from any step capable of altering the situation presently before the High Court.

The Court has spoken provisionally.

Until it speaks again, its Order deserves respect.

Where there is genuine disagreement about what the Order means after the expiration of tenure, the answer lies in the courtroom—not in unilateral takeover, political pressure or trial by media.

Amichi needs peace.

Amichi needs restraint.

And above all, Amichi needs respect for the rule of law.

SIGNED:

CONCERNED CITIZENS OF AMICHI