The recent appointment of Justice Theophilus Nzeukwu as the Acting Chief Judge of Imo State has sparked intense controversy within the legal community, particularly among members of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) in the state. The appointment, made by Governor Hope Uzodimma on April 2, 2025, follows the removal of the former Chief Judge, Theresa Chikeka, due to allegations of age falsification. However, the decision has been met with both support and opposition from different branches of the NBA in Imo State.
On one hand, the Owerri branch of the NBA has vehemently opposed the appointment, arguing that it violates constitutional provisions. According to Chairman Chris Ihentuge, Section 271(4) of the Nigerian Constitution mandates the governor to appoint the most senior judge as Acting Chief Judge whenever a vacancy arises. Since Justice Nzeukwu is fourth in the hierarchy, his appointment is seen as a breach of this constitutional requirement. Ihentuge emphasized that the governor has no discretion in this matter and called for the reversal of the appointment, even suggesting legal action if necessary.
On the other hand, the Mbaise branch of the NBA has backed the decision, with Chairman Eze Ihekoronye defending Governor Uzodimma’s choice. Ihekoronye argued that Justice Nzeukwu is the most qualified among the senior judges, based on available records and legal advice. He maintained that the appointment reflects the majority opinion of NBA members in Imo State, despite criticism from the Owerri branch.
The National Judicial Council (NJC) has also weighed in on the controversy, stating that it did not approve Justice Nzeukwu’s appointment. The NJC clarified that it received a request from Governor Uzodimma but has yet to consider it, emphasizing that the appointment was not endorsed by the Council.
As tensions rise within the legal community, the debate over Justice Nzeukwu’s appointment continues to divide the NBA in Imo State. While some see the appointment as a legitimate exercise of the governor’s authority, others view it as a constitutional breach that undermines the judiciary’s integrity. The ongoing dispute highlights the challenges faced by the judiciary in maintaining its independence and upholding the rule of law in the face of political pressures.