Lawyer alleges intimidation over road project criticism; claimant defends right to protect reputation as court proceedings continue
Protesters from various communities in Bende Local Government Area of Abia State have given Reverend Emmanuel Trumps Eke 72 hours to withdraw a civil defamation suit against Darlington Onyebuchi Agoha, threatening further demonstrations if their demand is not met.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!The protesters staged a demonstration outside the Umuahia High Court on Monday, expressing concern over the legal proceedings involving Agoha, whom they alleged was facing litigation for demanding accountability and transparency in the execution of a Federal Government-funded ecological project in the area.
The demonstration was organised by the Abia State Chapter of the Niger Delta Mobilization Team (NIMOT) for Good Leadership, whose motto is “Transparency, Accountability and Good Governance.”
The protesters carried placards bearing inscriptions such as “We Stand With Darlington Onyebuchi Agoha, The Voice of Bende,” “Emma Trump Eke, You Cannot Sue Darlington Agoha to Silence Him,” and “The Court Is for Justice, Not for Bullying Public Advocates Like Agoha.”
PROTESTERS QUESTION QUALITY OF PUBLIC PROJECTS
Speaking on behalf of the demonstrators, NIMOT Abia State Chairman, Dickson Kalu Uwakwe, said the people of Bende expected their elected representatives to address the developmental challenges confronting their communities.
Uwakwe argued that public officeholders should remain open to scrutiny, maintaining that citizens have the right to question the management of public funds and the quality of projects executed in their communities.
He alleged that several roads constructed in Bende deteriorated within three to six months of completion, raising concerns about construction standards and the utilisation of funds allocated to the projects.
The protest leader specifically questioned the execution of an ecological project along the Bende–Nkpa Road, claiming that although the project was initially expected to cover approximately 13 kilometres, only about eight kilometres were completed.
He further alleged that a bridge constructed as part of the project collapsed about six months after completion.
According to Uwakwe, Agoha’s demand for explanations concerning the project’s execution and the alleged collapse of the bridge prompted the legal action against him.
Uwakwe also alleged that some residents had faced intimidation over the dispute, claiming that security operatives had previously been brought in to arrest an individual. He said intervention by people from Bende prevented the situation from escalating.
The protesters threatened to extend their demonstrations to communities across Bende and take their grievances to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) if the suit was not withdrawn within 72 hours.
They maintained that their protest was motivated by concerns about accountability in public project execution rather than electoral politics.
Uwakwe added that the demonstrators had expected the claimant to appear at the court premises, where they intended to communicate their grievances directly to him.
DEFENCE COUNSEL ALLEGES INTIMIDATION
Meanwhile, Vincent Bernard Nwabueze, counsel to Agoha, has described the defamation suit as an attempt to intimidate citizens who raised concerns about the alleged poor execution and incomplete status of a Federal Government-funded road project in Nkpa community.
Nwabueze made the allegation while speaking with journalists after appearing in court in the case involving his client and Reverend Emmanuel Trumps Eke.
According to the lawyer, the dispute arose after Agoha complained about the condition of the road project, which he alleged was poorly executed and left incomplete despite claims that the contractor had received full payment.
Nwabueze said his client’s concerns were motivated by the hardship the condition of the road had imposed on residents and the wider community.
He described the matter as one of public interest, arguing that attention should focus on determining whether the project was properly executed and whether the community received value for public funds.
The lawyer also alleged that some young people who expressed concerns about the project had faced threats. He added that his client appeared in court amid fears of possible arrest.
However, Nwabueze declined to discuss the substantive issues in detail, noting that the matter was already before the court.
He disclosed that the defence had filed a motion seeking to strike out the suit, arguing that it constituted an abuse of court process and was contrary to public policy.
Nwabueze maintained that complaints concerning abandoned or poorly executed public projects should be referred to the appropriate authorities, including relevant government agencies, local government authorities and community leadership.
He argued that the priority should be the completion and quality of the road project rather than litigation against a citizen who raised concerns about its condition.
DEFENCE QUESTIONS PRE-TRIAL PROCEDURE
On the court proceedings, Nwabueze said the matter was scheduled for pre-trial proceedings but that the defence had not been served with the pre-trial form required for its response.
He indicated that the absence of the document could affect the effective continuation of the proceedings as scheduled.
The lawyer also clarified that the case was a civil defamation matter, noting that the legal implications of defamation depend on the nature of the allegations and the applicable proceedings.
The allegations concerning the project’s execution, payment to the contractor, the collapsed bridge and alleged intimidation were made by the protesters and the defence. They have not been independently established.
The court’s determination of the suit and the defence’s application to strike it out remain pending.
CLAIMANT DEFENDS RIGHT TO PROTECT REPUTATION
Responding to the protest, Emmanuel Trumps Eke maintained that the demonstration by residents of Bende Local Government Area was part of democratic culture.
He acknowledged the protesters’ right to express their views, stressing that everyone was entitled to have their say.
However, he argued that individuals also had the right to protect their integrity when they believed their reputations had been damaged.
According to Trumps, instituting a defamation suit was a legitimate means of protecting one’s reputation, particularly for a public servant.
Asked whether the dispute could be resolved through mediation, he said he was unaware of any such arrangement.
He reiterated that the protesters were entitled to demonstrate and express their grievances, adding that the court would ultimately determine the matter.
As proceedings continue, the dispute has brought renewed attention to public accountability, the quality of government-funded infrastructure and the right of individuals to seek legal redress over alleged damage to their reputations.
The substantive allegations remain subject to verification and judicial determination.
EMTV NEWS — News Updates Beyond Borders
