Former Governor of Imo State, Chief Ikedi Ohakim, has indicated intention to challenged ruling by a Federal High Court in Abuja granting leave to the Attorney-General of the Federation to take over his prosecution in a matter relating to nude videos of one Chinyere Amuchinwa.
In a press statement on his behalf by his lawyer, Alloy Ejimakor, the former governor said although he would continue to respect decisions of courts, he would promptly challenge the court’s ruling “in all appropriate fora, because it bears no relevance to the material particulars of the dispute.”
According to the lawyer, the ruling “created false impressions,” as the whole saga persists because “Dr Ohakim, as a former governor and a politically exposed, has detractors who have latched on this case to tarnish his stellar reputation.”
He said that Amuchinwa, at whose instance the AGF is taking over the case, “is already a defendant before an FCT High on the same set of facts that the Federal High Court made the instant ruling against Dr Ohakim. This development should have foreclosed this later ruling because, at law, Dr Ohakim cannot lawfully face trial on the same set of facts upon which Ms Amuchinwa was already facing trial.”
Ejimakor said that the earlier charges against Ohakim were already discontinued by the “complainants (Nigeria Police) before someone suddenly materialised from the office of the Attorney-General, insisting on taking over the case.”
He alleged that Amuchinwa is facing trial because “official police forensic evidence revealed that she was the one that produced the nude video she had accused Dr Ohakim of photoshopping. So, one wonders why a court should rule that Dr Ohakim will stand trial on a matter upon which forensic evidence had exonerated him.”
The lawyer said the court’s ruling ignored the long and twisted history of the case, as, “in addition to the damning forensic evidence on the nude video, the other reason Nigerian Police Force discontinued the related charges against Dr Ohakim was when they became aware that the charges were brought in flagrant disobedience of an extant order of a competent court.”
He said that the ruling was “made per incuriam (in manifest error) and will thus not survive the avalanche of the legal challenges that will be brought to bear, sooner than later.”