Scandal Rocks Imo Judiciary Again As Court Sets Aside ‘Altered’ Judgment CTC By Justice Nwagboso

-Odinkalu Exposes Judge  Retired For Age Falsification

A fresh controversy has hit the Imo State Judiciary following a ruling by the High Court of Imo State, which declared that a Certified True Copy (CTC) of a judgment issued in a land-related suit was not the judgment delivered and read in open court.

The development has attracted the attention of Professor Chidi Anselm Odinkalu, a professor of law and former Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, who has questioned what consequences should follow for the judge who delivered the original judgment.

Odinkalu raised the issue in successive posts on his X handle, describing the case as “truly incredible” and disclosing that the judge involved, Hon. Justice M.E. Nwagboso, was among nine judges of the Imo State High Court reportedly compulsorily retired by the National Judicial Council (NJC) in 2025 over age falsification.

According to Odinkalu, Justice Nwagboso delivered judgment on June 24, 2025, ruling in open court against the Governor of Imo State. However, he alleged that when the Certified True Copy of the judgment was subsequently issued, its contents had changed in favour of the governor.

He wrote that the party who originally prevailed subsequently applied to have the CTC set aside, leading the court to examine the official record book.

According to him, the court found that the original judgment notes had been concealed, while Justice S.I. Okpara, in a ruling delivered on July 21, 2026, set aside the disputed CTC.

Odinkalu subsequently asked: “What should happen to Justice Nwagboso?”

In another post, he alleged that Justice Nwagboso had been among nine judges compulsorily retired by the NJC in June 2025 over age falsification, adding that the judge had allegedly altered his age by 10 years.

The controversy stems from Suit No. HOR/98/2019, Hon. Chief Athanasius Uche Ogoh v. The Governor of Imo State & Ors., before the Orlu Judicial Division of the High Court of Imo State.

The plaintiff/applicant had filed Motion No. HOR/317M/2025 on November 20, 2025, seeking, among other reliefs, an order setting aside the document purporting to be the Certified True Copy of the judgment delivered on June 24, 2025.

He also sought an order directing Justice Nwagboso to produce the actual judgment allegedly delivered and read in open court on that date.

The application was supported by a 17-paragraph affidavit and seven exhibits, as well as a further affidavit with three additional exhibits. The defendants/respondents filed a counter-affidavit in opposition.

In his ruling, Justice Okpara found that the applicant had presented sufficient evidence indicating that the court’s record book had been doctored and that the CTC issued on July 23, 2025, was not the judgment delivered and read by Justice Nwagboso on June 24, 2025.

The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Obimonure v. Erinosho & Anor to hold that where an order is properly regarded as a nullity, the affected party may seek to have it set aside under the inherent jurisdiction of the court that made it, without necessarily appealing against it.

The court also rejected an objection that the application amounted to an abuse of court process, noting that merely filing a process does not constitute abuse.

Justice Okpara stated unequivocally that the court had “no difficulty” agreeing with the applicant that the disputed CTC was not the judgment delivered and read in open court by Justice Nwagboso.

Consequently, the court declared the CTC tendered as an exhibit “a nullity” and ordered that it be set aside.

However, the court refused the applicant’s second prayer seeking an order compelling Justice Nwagboso to produce the original judgment, holding that the retired judge was neither a party to the substantive suit nor a party to the application before the court.

The matter has consequently raised fresh questions about the integrity of judicial records, the sanctity of judgments delivered in open court and the appropriate institutional response where a court subsequently finds that an official copy of a judgment does not reflect what was originally delivered.

Appearing for the plaintiff/applicant were M.A. Njemanze, SAN, O.J. Odoemena and B.A. Abaku, while Mrs. V.E. Ekemgba, Director, represented the defendants/respondents.

Chief M.I. Ahamba, SAN, appeared alongside E.M. Ichie, Esq., as amicus curiae.

The court also expressed appreciation to Chief M.I. Ahamba, SAN, and Chief Chris Ihentuge for contributing their time, knowledge and experience as amici curiae in the matter.