SUNTV GLOBAL CHANNEL REPORT
Fresh controversy has erupted in the ongoing cyberstalking trial involving activist Comrade Ighorhiohwunu Aghogho, following a formal motion asking Justice H.A. Nganjiwa of the Federal High Court, Warri Division, to step down over alleged bias and jurisdictional concerns.
Aghogho, who is standing trial in a case filed by the Federal Government, submitted the application dated February 23, 2026, urging the court to recuse itself in the interest of justice and fair hearing.
In the motion, the activist is also requesting that the case file be transferred to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court for reassignment to another judge.
According to court documents, the defence based its request on Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal.
Counsel to the defendant, Andrew N. Elekeokwuri, argued that serious concerns arose after the court entertained an application for abridgement of time while a jurisdictional objection — filed as far back as October 3, 2025 — remains unresolved.
The defence insists that jurisdiction is fundamental and must be determined before any further steps are taken in a case.
They cited several Supreme Court authorities to support their position that failure to first address jurisdiction creates a reasonable apprehension of bias.
An affidavit sworn by the defendant’s wife, Mrs. Hope Ighorhiohwunu, confirmed that despite the pending objection, the court proceeded to hear and strike out the abridgement application.
She also stated that the presiding judge indicated he was awaiting directives from higher judicial authorities before ruling on the jurisdictional issue.
The defence disclosed that petitions have already been submitted against Justice Nganjiwa to the National Judicial Council and the office of the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court.
The defence further noted that Aghogho has remained in custody since his bail was revoked in June 2025, while his jurisdictional challenge is yet to be determined.
In a separate letter seeking administrative transfer of the case, counsel alleged that the cyberstalking charge was filed without the authorisation of the Attorney-General of the Federation, a requirement under Section 174(1) of the Constitution.
They referenced proceedings before the Community Court of Justice of ECOWAS, where it was reportedly stated that the Attorney-General neither initiated nor approved the prosecution.
According to the defence, if this claim is proven, the entire charge could be declared incompetent.
The case has been adjourned to March 19, 2026, when the court is expected to rule on both the jurisdictional objection and the application seeking the judge’s recusal — decisions that may significantly influence the direction of the high-profile cyberstalking trial.
